Constitutional Law Commons^™

Transforming Constitutional Doctrine Through Mandatory Appeals From Three-Judge District Courts: The Warren And Burger Courts And Their Contemporary Lessons, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment underwent significant change, both expanding and retrenching in various ways, in Supreme Court doctrine during the Warren and Burger Courts. An underappreciated influence on the change is the method by which those cases reached the Court’s docket. A significant number of the cases reached the Court’s docket not by discretionary grants of writs of certiorari, as occurred in most other cases, but by mandatory appeals directly from three-judge district courts. This article makes several contributions regarding the important changes in these doctrines during the Warren Court …

The Cycle Of Delegitimization: Lessons From Dred Scott On The Relationship Between The Supreme Court And The Nation, Jonathon J. Booth

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

This Article examines how Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford sparked a cycle of delegitimization that parallels contemporary debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis. Part I explicates how one family’s fight for freedom in Missouri reached the Supreme Court, the resulting radical decision, and the nation’s reaction to show the initial stages of this cycle. Part II examines the impact of Dred Scott on politics and law during the James Buchanan administration (1857–1861). During this period, the federal government, Southern states, and some Western territories swiftly implemented the decision, for example by expelling free Black residents. …

How American Society And Law Continue To Undermine People With Disabilities Seeking Education And Employment, Angelica Guevara

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Our Founders specifically identified education as necessary to economic success and full participation in our democracy and society. However, the Supreme Court held in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that education in America is not a constitutional right; instead, it is a commodity that few can afford. Then, in 2023, Biden v. Nebraska exposed the direct result of that ruling: the average American––regardless of their disability status––struggles to pay back their student loans, even when they have a well-paying job. The student debt crisis significantly impacts the economic future of students with disabilities, who make on average sixty-six …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Will The New Roberts Court Revive A Formalist Approach To Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence?, Roger Antonio Tejada

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

While all Chief Justices leave behind distinctive periods of judicial thought and practice, the quantitative and qualitative data presented in this article show that the Roberts Court in particular stands out in the development of Fourth Amendment precedent. The key cases that shaped the search and seizure doctrine before and during his rise show that, contrary to what many may expect, Chief Justice Roberts will likely oversee limited, pro-defendant decisions that could grant additional legitimacy to the Court’s crime-control jurisprudence. On the other hand, the new Justices’ voting records and writings suggest that there are several potential coalitions that could …

Rethinking The Fundamentals: Applying The Evolving Standards Of Decency Test To The Court’S Evaluation Of Fundamental Rights., Nick Wolfram

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

In 1910, the Supreme Court recognized in Weems v. United States that a constitution “must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth.” This principle led to the creation of the Court’s two-pronged “evolving standards of decency,” test: (1) evidence of an objective indicia of a national consensus, and (2) the reviewing court’s own independent judgment. To this day the Court has yet to apply this test outside of the Eighth Amendment context. But can the “evolving standards of decency,” test identify and protect other fundamental rights? This Article explores how the Court could apply the …

Terrorism Should Not Be A Crime: How Political Labels Are Dangerous To American Democracy, Abigail S. Grand

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Note calls for a dismantling of the United States’ current method of prosecuting terrorism, rejecting the “terrorism” label as a mechanism for charging crimes. Prosecutors should instead charge individuals in terrorism cases for their underlying criminal actions rather than rely on material support statutes and political innuendos to secure a conviction. By examining the implications of the terrorism label in post-9/11 America, this Note addresses how a moral panic enabled the executive branch to overstep its constitutional restraints and threatened the delicate balance of powers central to American democracy. Next, it proposes, as many have before, that Article III …

A Major Question For Administrative Law: How Are Courts Applying The Major Questions Doctrine Post West Virginia V. Epa?, Christopher Eckhardt

Catholic University Law Review

On June 30, 2022, judicial deference toward actions of administrative agencies took a significant hit. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court formally recognized—for the first time—the major questions doctrine, which requires agencies to identify clear congressional authorization when claiming the authority to make decisions of vast economic and political significance. Since June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court has utilized the major questions doctrine in decisions of national importance, including topics ranging from environmental protection efforts to cancelling student debt. This note offers a snapshot of how the major questions doctrine has been applied by federal courts across the country …

Sustaining America's Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands Post-Sackett Through Conservation, Shawna Bligh

UMKC Law Review

Part I of this Article discusses the functional role of wetlands in meeting the intended purpose of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The intended purpose of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The Court's decision in Sackett undermines the intended purpose of the CWA. Wetlands play an essential role in meeting this objective. Wetlands are hydrologically connected to and an embedded part of the overall aquatic ecosystem. The Sackett decision leaves wetlands subject to further degradation.

Part II of this Article provides an overview of the CWA, how we …

Sowing Seeds Of Restriction: Cultivating Insight Into Foreign Agricultural Holdings And Equal Protection Concerns, Payton R. Flower

Arkansas Law Review

Twenty-four states have enacted laws to restrict foreign land ownership, with many placing an emphasis on agricultural land in some capacity. This Comment will argue that state restrictions on foreign land ownership should be vulnerable to equal protection violations when presented squarely to the Supreme Court. Additionally, it will explore the specific implications for agricultural land given its increasing value and economic importance. This analysis is illustrated by the issue presented in Shen v. Simpson, a recent constitutional challenge to Florida’s land ownership restrictions. Part II will discuss the pertinent history and legal landscape that frames the issue. Part III …

The Death Of "Hey Ump!": New Rules In Pennsylvania And New Jersey Could Get You Locked Up Or Kicked Out For Heckling The Umpire, Hanna Lambert

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Editor-In-Chief’S Forward, Zoë Grimaldi

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

The Undignified First Amendment, Douglas E. Edlin

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Many commonly understand the constitutional right of free speech as an individual right of expression. One reason for this is the ascendance of the dignitarian or autonomy theory of free speech, which has supplanted the marketplace and democratic conceptions as the predominant theory of speech rights in the United States. As a result, scholars, judges, and citizens usually focus on the rights of speakers. But the United States Constitution does not describe a right to speak; the First Amendment protects a right to speech. This article argues that the preoccupation with the dignitarian basis for speech as expression has distorted …

A Government Branch Of Its Own: Reining In The Power Of The Regents Of The University Of California, Veronica Gray

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The University of California system is the crown jewel of American public universities. However, Californians have virtually no say over University of California policies. At the University of California’s inception, the drafters of the 1879 California Constitution envisioned a school system controlled by a Board of Regents who are largely insulated from politics. The autonomy from elected officials and the public allows the Regents to have nearly full control over a public good. The Regents’ autonomy and control over the University of California system has led to conflict between the Regents, the public, and state legislators regarding land use, labor, …

“It’S Not Ok To Not Be Ok”: Suicide, California’S Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, And The Constitution, Christina Strohmann

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Individuals who commit suicide are not incompetent or even making an irrational decision. Yet state laws, such as the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in California, continue to allow mental health professionals to lock up suicidal patients in psychiatric facilities against the patient’s will. These commitments, however, are not always beneficial, and in many instances are detrimental to both the patient and the mental health professional. Patients can be traumatized from the experience, feel more suicidal from lack of hope and feelings of betrayal. Mental health professionals cannot effectively treat suicidal patients when providers are fearful of liability or when their patients refuse …

The Spy In Your Pocket: Montana’S Tiktok Ban And The Federalism Limits Of State-Level Foreign Policy, Wei Luo

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

In May 2023, Montana became the first state in America to ban the social media app TikTok. This article proposes a two-prong analytical framework for evaluating the federalism limits of Montana’s TikTok ban (SB 419) and similar laws that other states might enact in the future. The first prong is a mandatory constitutional analysis of whether the state law runs afoul of restrictions on states’ foreign policy powers. These limits are threefold— Article I, Section 10, preemption, and the dormant Commerce Clause. This article focuses on federalism limits that only the states face and does not explore other constraints that …

Judicial Power And Potential Unconstitutionality: A Scholastic Perspective, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

This essay is an exercise in constructive retrieval of the traditional American understanding of judicial power with respect to judicial disregard of potentially unconstitutional laws when identifying rules of decision in constitutional adjudication.

This retrieval makes use of the act/potency distinction from Scholastic philosophy, Thomas Aquinas’s distinction between ius and lex, and John Marshall’s canonical account of the judicial application of the Constitution as a rule of decision in Marbury v. Madison to diagnose the cause of contemporary severability doctrine’s problems and to identify a basic framework for replacement doctrine.

I contend that the doctrinal pieces for the replacement …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Professor Matthew Steilen In Support Of Petitioners, Tiktok Inc. V. Garland (D.C. Cir. 2024) (No. 24-1113), Matthew J. Steilen

Other Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Going Cashless: Privacy Implications For Gun Control In A Digital Economy, Liza Goldenberg

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This paper will examine how, given the United States’ shift toward a cashless economy, the country’s top credit-card companies’ potential decision to implement a new merchant code for firearm-related transactions as a method of gun control will backfire, jeopardizing consumer privacy and leading to unregulated transactions through cryptocurrencies. Since the majority of gun violence stems from firearm transactions not involving credit cards, credit-card companies should abandon the new merchant code that dissuades Americans from exercising their fundamental rights. The American economy should focus on slowing the shift toward a digital economy so that federal and state governments can implement legislation …