Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Constitution And Charter In 2022: The Court, The Chief Justice, And Justice Brown, Jamie Cameron

All Papers

Osgoode Hall’s 26^th Annual Constitutional Cases Conference – the 2022 Year in Review – was held on April 14, 2023. This paper is drawn from the Opening Address, which provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and is a longstanding feature of the conference. As it explains, the Court’s thirteen decisions in 2022 focused almost exclusively on the Charter’s legal rights and remedies, though R. v. Sharma considered and dismissed a claim under s.15, and the Court rendered one decision on public interest standing. The paper provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 2022 jurisprudence, adding …

No Balancing For Anti-Constitutional Government Conduct, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals

It Is A Constitution We Are Expounding: John Marshall, Spencer Roane, And The Fundamental Conflicts Surrounding Mcculloch V. Maryland (1819), Catherine T. Meisenheimer

Compass: An Undergraduate Journal of American Political Ideas

Using a blend of primary and secondary sources, this research paper examines the lesser-known newspaper debate between Chief Justice John Marshall and Judge Spencer Roane of the Virginia Court of Appeals. The purpose of this research is to answer one question: What were the fundamental issues that divided early Americans as demonstrated by the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)? To contribute to the ongoing discussion of McCulloch and its significance, my paper attempts to understand the issues surrounding McCulloch within its broader, historical context. Instead of confining its importance to the Second Bank of the United States, I …

Conduct Relating To The Practice Of Law: Aba Model Rule 8.4(G) And Its History In Light Of The Constitution, Nathan Moelker

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The ABA adopted a revision to the Model Rules in 2016, prohibiting harassment and discrimination against a list of protected classes. The Rule, while well-intentioned and targeted at a serious problem, was broadly phrased to include a large category of protected speech and behavior. The Rule has already faced extensive and well-crafted challenges from the perspective of the Free Speech Clause. This article argues that two additional provisions of the First Amendment—the Free Exercise Clause and Freedom of Association—further illustrate the failure of the Rule and the alarmingly wide-ranging effects of such a prohibition on attorney conduct.

The Philosophy Of Ai: Learning From History, Shaping Our Future. Hearing Before The Committee On Homeland Security And Government Affairs, Senate, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, First Session., Margaret Hu

Congressional Testimony

No abstract provided.

Pengembalian Fungsi Pengawasan Pemilu Kepada Masyarakat Sebagai Wujud Penyelenggaraan Pemilu Yang Demokratis, Burhan Robith Dinaka, Fitra Arsil

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

Elections as a means of implementing people's sovereignty which are held directly, publicly, freely, confidentially, honestly and fairly within the territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia which are based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia also mandate a model of election supervision through Bawaslu as the election organizing institution whose task is to observe, review, inspect and assess the election implementation process so that it runs in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws and regulations. The ongoing strengthening of positions, duties, functions and authority within Bawaslu has left a number …

Expert Knowledge, Democratic Accountability, And The Unitary Executive, Barry Sullivan

Fordham Law Review

Proponents of the “unitary executive” theory hold that “all federal officers exercising executive power must be subject to the direct control of the President.” But how, as a constitutional matter, should such presidential control be defined, and how should it be effectuated? Unitarians are not united. Kevin H. Rhodes and Professor Steven G. Calabresi identify at least three distinct versions of the theory, which reflect a diversity of responses to those questions. The strongest or most aggressive version (which may also find the least support in the relevant jurisprudence) holds that the President may “supplant any discretionary executive action taken …

The Diffuse Executive, Anya Bernstein, Cristina Rodriguez

Fordham Law Review

A unitary executive is an exacting ideal. It asks that all power in an administration be gathered in the person of the President, who should have full authority to determine the actions of officials and employees. Even if the President does not directly control every executive action (how could he?), when officials fail to implement presidential preferences, the unitary theory dictates that the President must have the power to remove them. The model posits a tightly organized hierarchy—every rung implementing the substantive decisions of the rung above, with orders flowing from the top: a command-and-control structure for government action. And, …

Article Iii, The Bill Of Rights, And Administrative Adjudication, John M. Golden, Thomas H. Lee

Fordham Law Review

Modern reconsideration of legal constraints on the federal administrative state has commonly focused on agency rulemaking but seems increasingly concerned with agency adjudication. In this Essay, we provide an overview of constitutional issues implicated by administrative adjudication. We specifically explain how and why the so-called public-rights doctrine generally allows federal administrative adjudication outside private-rights actions substantially linked to traditional actions in law, equity, or admiralty. We also discuss how constitutional provisions outside Article III—including Bill of Rights protections of individuals as against the federal government—may nonetheless require a role for Article III courts even in so called public rights cases, …

The Collateral Fallout From The Quest For A Unitary Executive, Harold J. Krent

Fordham Law Review

To bolster a strong “Unitary Executive,” the Roberts Court has held that Congress can neither shield a single head of an administrative agency nor an inferior officer in an independent agency from removal at will. With respect to appointments, the Roberts Court has held that adjudicative officers in many executive agencies must now be appointed either by the President or a superior officer under the President’s supervision. As a result, dissenting Justices and academics have accused the Roberts Court of expanding Article II beyond both the constitutional text—which seemingly grants Congress the discretion to structure administrative agencies as it deems …

Police Officers, Policy, And Personnel Files: Prosecutorial Disclosure Obligations Above And Beyond Brady, Lauren Giles

Fordham Law Review

Police officers play a significant role in the criminal trial process and are unlike any other witness who will take the stand. They are trained to testify, and jurors find them more credible than other witnesses, even though officers may have more incentive to lie than the ordinary witness. Despite the role of police officers in criminal proceedings, state statutes say virtually nothing about evidence used to impeach police officers, often contained in the officer’s personnel file. Worse still, the standard for disclosing information in an officer’s personnel file varies among and within states, resulting in inconsistent Brady disclosures. This …

Due Process Protections For Charter School Students In Long-Term Exclusionary Discipline Proceedings, Leah E. Soloff

Fordham Law Review

Charter schools—public schools that are subject to minimal state regulation—often employ high levels of exclusionary discipline. Because charter schools in many states are exempt from state laws regulating school discipline, the U.S. Constitution provides charter school students their only source of protections during such disciplinary proceedings. However, the constitutional due process protections afforded to public school students in disciplinary proceedings remain a source of significant disagreement among courts. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has established that public school students must be afforded due process protections in exclusionary discipline proceedings, the Court has yet to determine what process is actually due …

Moore, The Sixteenth Amendment, And The Underpinnings Of The Deemed Repatriation Provision, Christopher H. Hanna

SMU Law Review Forum

In Moore v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a rare Sixteenth Amendment case. On its face, the case deals with deemed repatriation, a discrete provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that included in income past accumulated earnings held abroad. This short Article seeks to contextualize the deemed repatriation provision in terms of why it was passed and how it comports with principles underlying the U.S. tax code. Drawing on firsthand experience researching and drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Article shows the analysis that went into enacting the provision, focusing on …

Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.

These cases raise important questions about …

Inconsistencies In State Court Decisions Regarding Public School Financing Are Violating The Constitutional Rights Of Citizens: Why The Nevada Court In Shea V. State Should Have Intervened, Corinne Milnamow

University of Miami Law Review

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which held there was no fundamental right to education under the United States Constitution. In the years that have followed Rodriguez, state courts across the country have been left to decide issues related to public school financing. Many plaintiffs in these cases will argue that education is a fundamental right under their state’s constitution and that their respective state’s public school financing structure—one that heavily relies on local property taxes—is unconstitutional because of the discrepancies in the quality of education one will receive in …

The Uncertain Future Of Constitutional Democracy In The Era Of Populism: Chile And Beyond, Samuel Issacharoff, Sergio Verdugo

University of Miami Law Review

Largely missing from the extensive discussions of populism and illiberal democracy is the emerging question of 21st century constitutionalism. Nowadays, it is hard to see relevant constitutional changes without a strong appeal to direct popular political participation. Institutional mechanisms such as referenda, citizens’ assemblies, and constitutional conventions emerge as near-universal parts of the canon of every academic and political discussion on how constitutions should be enacted and amended. This Article’s aim is to offer a cautionary approach to the way participatory mechanisms can work in constitution-making and to stress the difference between the power to ratify constitutional proposals and the …

Sovereignty Before Law, Salmoli Choudhuri, Moiz Tundawala

Articles

Book review: Violent Fraternity: Indian Political Thought in the Global Age, by Shruti Kapila, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2021, 328 pp., $37.00/£30.00, ISBN 9780691195223

Americans For Prosperity Foundation V. Bonta: Protecting Free Speech And Its Implications For Campaign Finance Disclosures, Sara Lindsay Neier

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta considered the anonymous speech rights of charitable donors against the California Attorney General’s interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. The Court applied exacting scrutiny, a standard traditionally applied to campaign finance disclosure laws, determining that California’s requirement was facially invalid as a violation of associational rights. Bonta did not concern campaign finance, making this application of exacting scrutiny novel. This Article considers the open questions raised by Bonta regarding how exacting scrutiny should be applied and what it means for the future of campaign finance …

The Case For Federal Deference To State Court Redistricting Rulings: Lessons From Ohio’S Districting Disaster, John Sullivan Baker

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In a watershed 2015 referendum, Ohioans decisively approved a state constitutional amendment that prohibited partisan gerrymandering of General Assembly districts and created the Ohio Redistricting Commission. Though the amendment mandated that the Commission draw proportional maps not primarily designed to favor or disfavor a political party, the Commission—composed of partisan elected officials—repeatedly enacted unconstitutional, heavily gerrymandered districting plans in blatant defiance of the Ohio Supreme Court.

After the Ohio Supreme Court struck down four of the Commission’s plans, leaving Ohio without state House and Senate maps just months before the 2022 general election, a group of voters sued in the …

Fertile Ground For Violent Extremists: A New Framework To Protect Military Servicemembers And Their Civil Liberties, Sarah Armstrong

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

Veterans and active-duty members of the armed forces are popular and vulnerable targets for recruitment by alt-right and violent white extremist (“VWE”) groups. As the United States government attempts to deal with an influx of violent hate groups throughout the country, both in the civilian and military context, it must respect the civil liberties of those investigated. This is critical because prosecutors often sweep with a broad brush when investigating resistance movements, and protestors of color and from marginalized backgrounds are disproportionately targeted. Further, on a constitutional level, every American has fundamental rights that cannot be abridged. Therefore, when dealing …