Legal Studies Commons^™

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

One hundred and twenty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of the single most notorious opinions ever rendered, striking down a New York labor law for violating a right to contract found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. The era of Lochner v. NY (1905) is well past us, but not the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the President, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts. Bringing together two lines of case-law-on …

Brief In Support Of Respondents As Amici Curiae, Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Et. Al, No. 25-332, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Jonathan Gienapp

Scholarship@WashULaw

In the years since this Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), legal historians—including originalists—have unearthed a rich body of evidence challenging the conventional wisdom concerning the scope of the President’s removal powers at the Founding. Revisiting not only the Framers’ intellectual influences, but also their driving philosophical concerns and political incentives, this scholarship explains that removal authority was not understood to be vested exclusively in the President as a matter of settled constitutional law, but rather was permissibly exercised by various actors in various ways, intentionally not settled by the …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

Scholarship@WashULaw

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Viability As Abortion-Rights Orthodoxy, Susan Frelich Appleton

Scholarship@WashULaw

Borrowing a quotation from Justice Jackson’s influential opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Professors Linda McClain and James Fleming have named their ambitious and illuminating new book “What Shall Be Orthodox” in Polarized Times. As Justice Jackson wrote in applying the First Amendment to protect school children with familial objections to a required flag salute: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act …

The Search For Unenumerated Fundamental Rights, Alina Sluzhyvenkova

Student Theses and Dissertations

There are certain rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, e.g., right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to a speedy and public trial. There are also rights that aren’t specifically written out but are nevertheless enjoyed by people nationwide. Rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but which are fundamental to are called the unenumerated rights. Unenumerated rights are just as important and can be derived from natural law, enumerated rights, the Ninth Amendment, precedents, judicial opinions, and substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a principle guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which …

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Northwestern University Law Review

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using “explicit,” “clear,” and “unambiguous” statements—or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using “legally magic” words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do …

Rising Temperatures, The Prison Litigation Reform Act, And The Heat Death Of Human Dignity In Texas Prisons, Brianne Wylie

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note seeks to shed light on the life-threatening danger of extreme heat in un-air-conditioned Texas prisons. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) starkly limits the relief available to those suffering and dying in these prisons. This Note proposes an amendment to the legislation that could create a path toward lasting relief for incarcerated people. After analyzing the effects of increasing heat on the particularly vulnerable prison population, this Note analyzes how the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have handled claims alleging constitutionally violative prison conditions under the Eighth Amendment—in short, ineffectively, if at all. This Note then details …

Criminal Juror Challenges And Csli: A Rule 16 Revision To Maintain Impartial Juries, Ivy Kaplan

Northwestern University Law Review

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants “the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State.” Voir dire, the procedure during which the prosecution and the defense may challenge prospective jurors for cause or exercise peremptory challenges, purports to uphold this right. When the prosecution has access to cellular geolocation data on prospective jurors that the defense lacks, however, it may jeopardize the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

This Note proposes a solution to that problem in the form of an addition to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. …

Mutual Recognitions Across Generations, Steven L. Winter Walter S. Gibbs Distinguished Professor Of Constitutional Law

Law Faculty Research Publications

“Sovereignty,” Arendt says, “is contradictory to” the human condition. It is not, in any event, the kind of thing that can be shared across generations. Subsequent generations lack sovereignty to the precise degree that they are bound by the decisions of their predecessors. It is no answer to say that contemporary citizens participate in the sovereignty of a whole, transgenerational people. To paraphrase de Tocqueville, later generations are not free because they are not entirely equal, and they are not equal because they are not entirely free.

Where “sovereignty” is a metaphysical concept that transcends time, recognition is an act …

Can Human Rights Be Reconciled With Citizenship: Reconsidering Marx's Zur Judenfrage Today, David Ingram

Philosophy: Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay critically re-examines Marx’s youthful analysis of the separation of church and state and his complex views about the function of rights in the modern state. I argue that Marx’s condemnation of Christian nationalism and endorsement of citizenship for Jews is consistent with his view that the modern, secular state cannot emancipate itself entirely from religiosity, as evidenced by the continuing legacy of nationalism and cultural identity politics today. Although Marx correctly follows Hegel in identifying modernity with a structural differentiation between civil society and state, I argue that he misunderstands the nature of this separation and, along with …

Democracy's Ruling Hand, Steven L. Winter Walter S. Gibbs Distinguished Professor Of Constitutional Law

Law Faculty Research Publications

The claim of liberal constitutionalism is that a text-like object or a ‘diplomatically abstract’ set of principles can work a deflection of disagreements within a pluralist polity. But this project assumes both that pluralism remains amenable to reason and that reason is a capacity independent of the profound differences of meaning, value, and forms of life that shape those disagreements. Neither assumption is correct. Differences in norms, values, and forms of life inevitably undergird and structure differences in meaning, perception, and interpretation. Consequently, a constitution (even when written and accompanied by judicial review) will necessarily unfold in an ongoing process …

Settler Colonialism And Ecosystem Change: How Ideology Has Shaped Minnesota’S Environments, Sarah E. Hobby

History Honors Projects

The formation of a uniquely American land ethic—defined by European political history and Christian biblical doctrine and forged through systems of dispossession—is central to the creation of environments within the United States today. Using Minnesota as a microcosm to understand how settler colonial interactions played out all across the United States, this paper analyzes connections between violent dispossession of Indigenous people and the degradation of environments. By understanding how Ojibwe and Dakota people think about and have shaped Minnesotan lands throughout their history and comparing Indigenous land-ethics to the Euro-American-settler land ethic, this paper evaluates the role that ideology and …

Influences Of Social Media, Samuel Whatley Ii

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

The Internet is a double-edged sword because it provides easy access to information of both good and bad intentions. Censorship justifications under whoever deems something misinformation, provide little oversight on being a neutral public forum. For instance, the influence of elections by not covering a story and censoring opposing views does not promote the notion of being a neutral public forum. Artificial intelligence being applied to many technological applications have fueled the censorship machine. In some instances, artificial intelligence can generate stories to media sites (i.e., ChatGPT) with no verification of the details. From science fiction to science reality, taking …

Searching Govinfo.Gov/, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

This U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) database provides access to information legal, legislative, and regulatory information produced on multiple subjects by the U.S. Government. Content includes congressional bills, congressional committee hearings and prints (studies), reports on legislation, the text of laws, regulations, and executive orders and multiple U.S. Government information resources covering subjects from accounting to zoology.

Casar Student Debate#4:"Should Men Be Allowed To Vote On Abortion Legislation?", The Prince Alwaleed Center For American Studies And Research Casar, Yasmeen El Ghazaly, Mark W. Deets

Performances, Events, and Presentations

Every semester, CASAR AUC holds miscellaneous student debates discussing the hot controversial topics in the US, Egypt and from around the world in hopes of raising awareness about these topics & broadening the perspectives of our students as they learn to engage in fruitful discussions as they share different opinion on the topic being deliberated.

At this CASAR Student Discussion event #4 in celebration of International Women's Day, an introduction was given about the historical context for enacting laws on abortion in Egypt & the US, then we watched a brief video where men in the US answered this very …

Boiling Behind Bars: Exploring The Hidden Toll Of Extreme Heat On Mental Health In Texas Prisons, Sandra K. Miller

Social Work Theses - Archive

The State of Texas supports the largest prison system in the US and held 132,859 people in 100 units scattered across the state as of December 2023. Approximately 70% of Texas prison beds are not air conditioned, despite the state’s reputation for dangerously hot, humid summers. The State has officially recorded temperatures inside Texas prison facilities as high as 120 degrees with heat index values of over 150. Although there is a growing body of research on the negative physiological and psychological consequences of extreme heat among the general public, little is known about the physical and emotional toll of …

False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

According to the popular culture of criminal trials, skillful cross-examination can reveal the whole “truth” of what happened. In a climactic scene, defense counsel will expose a lying accuser, clear up the statements of a confused eyewitness, or surface the incentives and biases in testimony. Constitutional precedents, evidence theory, and trial procedures all reflect a similar aspiration—that cross-examination performs lie detection and thereby helps to produce accurate outcomes. Although conceptualized as a protection for defendants, cross-examination imposes some unexplored costs on them. Because it focuses on the physical presence of a witness, the current law of confrontation suggests that an …

The Riddle Of Race-Based Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court has adopted divergent interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to race and redistricting. Vote dilution doctrine requires mapmakers to consider race to ensure that racial minorities are not packed or cracked. Congress, moreover, has embraced vote dilution doctrine in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. By contrast, racial gerrymandering doctrine triggers strict scrutiny if mapmakers subordinate traditional redistricting principles to race, thereby threatening Section 2’s constitutionality.

To resolve this doctrinal riddle, this Essay examines whether, as originally understood, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment governed the use of race during redistricting. The Equal Protection Clause …

The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, And Confounded, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

As explicated by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, and reaffirmed in Biden v. Nebraska in 2023, the “major questions doctrine” provides that an administrative agency’s rule in a “major” case must rest on “clear congressional authorization.” Many commentators have deplored the major questions doctrine on the basis of its policy consequences. This Article offers a critique of the doctrine from a different angle. It primarily contends that the reasons the Court has given for enforcing the doctrine do not withstand scrutiny, even on their own terms.

In West Virginia and Nebraska, the Court relied heavily …

Police Diversity Theory, Trevor George Gardner

Scholarship@WashULaw

In light of both the tragic death of Tyre Nichols in Memphis at the hands of Black police officers and the mixed results of studies of Black same-race policing, this Article proposes a conceptual framework by which to better understand the utility of police diversity. The framework maps the relational possibilities among three factors: (i) the Black officer’s approach to same-race policing; (ii) the Black officer’s performance in the context of same-race policing; and (iii) the policing priorities of the Black communities the Black officer is taken to represent.

Responsive to the conceptual framework for police diversity theory, the Article …

Legitimacy And The Major Questions Doctrine, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Questions about the legitimacy of recent Supreme Court decisions are occupying an increasingly prominent place in public law discourse. Last February, a widely discussed feature in the New York Times quoted several well-known law professors' laments that multiple decision by the newly empowered conservative majority of the Court have departed so far from accepted constitutional premises that the professor could not figure out how to teach them to their students

...

With due respect to the Chief Justice, I will explain here why the MQD is itself among the few legal developments that I would describe as giving rise to …

Washu Expert: Can Trump Bypass Senate Approval Of Controversial Cabinet Nominees?, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Neil Schoenherr

Scholarship@WashULaw

Andrea Katz, an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on constitutional law, with a focus on presidential power. Here, she discusses how Cabinet members are traditionally appointed and whether the Senate or the Supreme Court could stop Trump from doing an end-around on tradition.

The Role Of U.S. Government Regulatioms, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

Provides detailed coverage of information resources on U.S. Government information resources for federal regulations. Features historical background on these regulations, details on the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations, includes information on individuals can participate in the federal regulatory process by commenting on proposed agency regulations via https://regulations.gov/, describes the role of presidential executive orders, refers to recent and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases involving federal regulations, and describes current congressional legislation seeking to give Congress greater involvement in the federal regulatory process.

The Departure From The Original Intent Of The 14th Amendment, Johnny B. Davis

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

No abstract provided.

Drug Ideologies Of The United States, Macy Montgomery

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

The United States has been increasingly creating lenient drug policies. Seventeen states and Washington, the District of Columbia, legalized marijuana, and Oregon decriminalized certain drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. The medical community has proven that drugs, including marijuana, have myriad adverse health side effects. This leads to two questions: Why does the United States government continue to create lenient drug policies, and what reasons do citizens give for legalizing drugs when the medical community has proven them harmful? The paper hypothesizes that the disadvantages of drug legalization outweigh its benefits because of the numerous harms it causes, such as …

Batson V. Kentucky Guidelines And The Use Of Peremptory Challenges In Arkansas Courts: A Case Study, Abigail Lindsey

Political Science Undergraduate Honors Theses

The peremptory challenge is a method by which attorneys can strike a potential juror from the jury pool without a valid reason. With Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that peremptory challenges cannot be issued on the basis of race, however, there are many problems with the way this precedent has been followed in various states. The goal of this research is to analyze how Arkansas courts implement the Batson precedent. This research also studies whether the way in which Arkansas courts utilize the peremptory challenge creates ideologically imbalanced juries.

The Intersection Of Judicial Interpretive Methods And Politics In Supreme Court Justices’ Due Process Opinions, Julie Castle

The Compass

The Supreme Court, a nine seat bench of unelected and lifetime tenured Justices, determines the constitutionality of dozens of cases each year. In this thesis, I research to what extent the political affiliation of the Justices affects the judicial decision making process and, ultimately, case outcomes. Using pattern matching, I evaluate due process opinions from Justice Breyer, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia, all of whom have established constitutional analysis methods, in order to determine if they reasonably adhere to their established method. Due to the highly political nature of due process cases, variance between the expected (adherence to the Justices’ …

Removal Rehashed Legal History: Response, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum

Scholarship@WashULaw

We are grateful to the Harvard Law Review Forum for the chance to respond in these pages to The Executive Power of Removal. In this new piece, Professors Aditya Bamzai and Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash aim to persuade readers that the President’s power to remove executive officers is exclusive and nondefeasible; textually mandated; and a matter of common assent at the time of the Founding.

There are high hurdles to proving this argument, and this piece fails to scale them. There is little evidence for any of these separate contentions, whether we look to the Constitution’s text or the history …

What Issues Are Fair Game In Moore V. United States?, Conor Clarke

Scholarship@WashULaw

On December 5th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. United States, a constitutional challenge to the mandatory repatriation tax (“MRT”) in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The case raises basic questions about the scope of Congress’s taxing power, and has the potential to reshape and limit federal taxation. (Ben Silver had a nice summary of the complicated constitutional and statutory background last week, and I’ve also written about the case elsewhere. Rather than rehash those details, I will assume some basic familiarity with the case in what I say below.

The Judicial Assault On The Administrative State Regulating Upheavals In The Securities Markets And Boardrooms, Joel Seligman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The most substantial change in the United States Government has been the extraordinary growth and increased complexity of the United States Government itself. George Washington initially was President of a country with a population of about four million, eleven States, and three Cabinet Departments (State, Treasury, and War). Washington’s Government had no standing army, no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, and no programs addressing the environment, labor, or health. In 1791, the Treasury Department had approximately 500 employees, the War Department had 12, the State Department, 8.

Today, the National Government has twenty-four Cabinet members. In 2023, there are 2.89 …