Constitutional Law Commons^™

But For A Free Press: A Response To Press Freedom Skeptics, Kevin F. O'Neill, Patrick J. Charles

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article is divided into three Parts. Part I will outline the history-in-law case forwhy the historical record sufficiently supports recognizing distinct constitutional press freedoms. Part II then provides a history-in-law response to some of the most common arguments made by press freedom skeptics as to why distinct constitutional press freedoms should not be recognized by the courts. Lastly, Part III makes the case for why the recognition of distinct constitutional press freedoms should become a jurisprudential reality and provides a roadmap to accomplish this.

Conservation Advocates Zambia Limited V The Attorney General (2023/Ccz/0018) [2024] Zmcc 6, Emmanuel N. Nyambe

SAIPAR Case Review

The author explores Conservation Advocates Zambia Limited v The Attorney General, contrasting the majority’s application of the constitutional avoidance doctrine with a forceful dissent. The majority declined to hear an environmental petition, classifying the grievances as statutory rather than constitutional. The author aligns with the dissent, arguing that such reasoning sidesteps the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to protect and promote environmental rights. The case presents a fundamental choice for the Court: whether to treat the Constitution as a source of aspirational guidance or as a directly enforceable instrument of environmental accountability and public participation.

Goodbye, Zoning?, Michael Allan Wolf

UF Law Faculty Publications

American zoning is under attack on multiple fronts. The concerns of zoning's many critics range from social and racial justice, to private property rights, to the extreme shortage of affordable housing, to climate-change resilience and sustainability. A growing number of voices have called for, at a minimum, the elimination of single-family zones; some even champion the abolition of this ubiquitous method of American land use regulation. This Article is the first detailed look at what would happen if zoning's critics got their way. The most efficient means for erasing zoning from American law would be for the U.S. Supreme Court …

The Chilling Effects Of Dobbs, Jonathon W. Penney, Danielle Keats Citron, Alexis Shore Ingber

Articles & Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s evisceration of the federal constitutional right to abortion has raised the specter of criminal and civil liability for abortion providers and patients. Police and prosecutors have easy access to commercial reservoirs of intimate data. As individual accounts made clear in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, corporate surveillance of intimate life chilled expressive activities, such as searching for information about reproductive health and using period tracking apps. Health professionals did not feel safe to speak out about the impact of new abortion laws. Harassment and threats directed at abortion clinics and at …

Redistricting And The Origins Of The Good Faith Presumption, Leonard C. Brahin

Barry Law Review

Evidentiary and substantive presumptions are a well-established tool that courts employ when addressing a variety of legal problems. These presumptions streamline litigation, avoid debate over minor disputes, and ensure that the most important issues can be addressed. But these same presumptions just as frequently close the courthouse doors on meritorious claims and preemptively shut down litigation where a disputed issue exists.

One area this occurs is redistricting. In the last fifty years, the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded its substantive presumptions in redistricting matters to permit facially discriminatory redistricting plans. By invoking the presumption of good faith, …

Clark Memorandum: Spring 2025, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Byu Law School Alumni Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society

The Clark Memorandum

• Primary and Professional Identity
• Never Only Two Sides
• In Defense of Zion and Her People
• The Pursuit of Happiness

Isaac Mwanza And Zambia Civil Liberties Union (Zclu) V The Attorney General 2024/Ccz/008, Emmanuel Banda

SAIPAR Case Review

This contribution considers Isaac Mwanza and Zambia Civil Liberties Union (ZCLU) v Attorney General, a case challenging the constitutionality of longstanding penal provisions criminalising same-sex relations. The author takes issue with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to entertain the matter on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that it misconstrued the relationship between Articles 28 and 128 of the Constitution. By deferring entirely to the High Court on Bill of Rights issues, the author contends, the Constitutional Court has left a significant gap: legislation that may violate fundamental rights now lacks a clear constitutional forum for challenge. The piece underscores a persistent ambiguity in …

Coercing Virtue Or Superintending Constitutional Order? A Comment On Munir Zulu And Celestine Mukandila V Attorney General, O'Brien Kaaba, Emmanuel N. Nyambe

SAIPAR Case Review

In Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court of Zambia intervened for the first time in a constitutional amendment process before a bill was tabled, asserting its authority to oversee executive conduct in line with constitutional principles. While the author commends the Court’s departure from a historically passive judiciary, a pointed critique is offered of the judgment’s conceptual shortcomings. The analysis highlights the Court’s conflation of constituent and constituted power, its reliance on an inaccurate historical account of past amendments, and the jurisdictional inconsistency it created with the earlier Bill 10 ruling, all of which weaken …

The Attorney General V Rajan Mahthani (Appeal No. 4 Of 2020) [2025] Zmsc (24 July 2025): Judicial Recusal And Why It Is Important To Strike A Balance, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

This contribution examines The Attorney General v Rajan Mahthani, a Supreme Court ruling on judicial recusal. The author critically assesses the Court’s insistence on proving actual, extrajudicial bias as a prerequisite for recusal. Though the importance of shielding the judiciary from frivolous motions is acknowledged, the piece warns that the Court’s rigid stance, paired with its admonishing tone, may undermine the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution. Drawing on South African and Kenyan jurisprudence, the author proposes adopting a “reasonable apprehension of bias” standard that respects judicial independence while safeguarding public confidence in the …

The Right To Grow Old, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter considers the status of a constitutional “right to grow old” under the US Constitution. Understood as a “positive” right – ensuring a certain minimum quality of life to people as they face the challenges of aging – such a right may seem unavailing given the austerity in respect to such rights that many lawyers associate with the US constitutional tradition. This chapter shows this view to be premature, at least. Unlike the kinds of positive rights overtly rejected in prior cases, such as rights to certain forms of social welfare or to racial equality, a right to grow …

Originalism’S Precedent Problem, James Bernstein

Northern Illinois University Law Review

This paper explores the tension between originalism and stare decisis in judicial decision-making. Originalism, which seeks to interpret the Constitution as understood at the time of its ratification, has gained bipartisan acceptance among judges. However, this interpretive approach faces challenges regarding precedent: How should originalist judges handle past decisions that deviate from the original public meaning of the Constitution? The paper examines this issue, particularly in light of originalists’ varied stances on the role of precedent.

Some originalists, like Antonin Scalia and Amy Coney Barrett, acknowledge the need for stare decisis to maintain legal stability, albeit with allowances for overturning …

Political Threads In Legal Tapestry: A Computational Analysis Of Executive Branch Legal Interpretation, 1934–2022, Reilly S. Steel

Faculty Scholarship

How does the push and pull between law and politics shape the work of executive branch lawyers charged with providing “neutral” interpretations of the law? To shed light on this longstanding question, this Article undertakes the first large-scale computational analysis of legal interpretation in the executive branch of the United States federal government. Using a new dataset comprised of the texts of 12,879 pages of opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the Department of Justice (DOJ), I use machine learning methods to explore markers of partisanship and ideology in these high-profile executive branch decisions.

Several important …

The Imposition Of Constitutional Rights, Alvin Padilla-Babilonia

Michigan Law Review

One of the central principles of constitutionalism is that citizenship stands for equal rights under the law. According to this ideal, a U.S. citizen living in Puerto Rico or Guam should have the same constitutional rights as a citizen living on the mainland. However, throughout U.S. history, constitutional rights have been neither uniform nor centralized. While constitutional rights held importance, they coexisted with ideals of democratic self-governance and legal pluralism. Today, Supreme Court justices and legal scholars argue that all constitutional rights should apply in the territories. This view upholds citizenship, equal rights, and the rule of law. But the …

Development And Practice Of Tribal Community Planning: Ensuring Indigeneity In The Planning Process, Jared E. Munster, Ph.D.

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking Back The Takings Clause: The Case For Compensating Innocent Property Owners Caught In The Crossfire Of Police Activity, Kathleen Collins

William & Mary Law Review

Part I of this Note will provide an overview of the history of the Takings Clause, the role of the police power in takings jurisprudence, and the necessity exception to takings. Specifically, Part I will demonstrate that (1) the gravity of physical government intrusions has led the Supreme Court to consistently treat such intrusions as per se takings, (2) any distinction between eminent domain and the police power exists in the context of regulatory takings, and (3) the necessity exception rests on a shaky foundation as a common law tort doctrine. Part II will refute Lech’s conclusion that law …

The Emerging Virginia Constitution: Open Questions Of Interpretation, And How Their Resolution May Impact Unenumerated Rights, The Honorable Lisa M. Lorish, Elizabeth Putfark

University of Richmond Law Review

State constitutionalism is having a moment. While past publics were concerned almost exclusively with federal constitutional rights, it has recently become normal for national news publications to cover a state supreme court’s interpretation of its own constitution: Hawaii recently received significant attention for its methods of constitutional interpretation, which notably include deference to Hawaii’s traditional “spirit of Aloha”; the Montana Supreme Court’s interpretation of environmental protections in its constitution likewise received widespread media coverage; and state constitutions more generally have stepped into the limelight, particularly as they pertain to abortion rights no longer protected by the Federal Constitution under the …

A Distinctive Court: A Glimpse Into The History And Significance Of The D.C. Circuit, Judge J. Michelle Childs

Fordham Law Review

Judge J. Michelle Childs serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before her appointment, Judge Childs received a B.A. from the University of South Florida Honors College and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She also received Masters degrees from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business and from Duke University School of Law, as well as an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the University of South Carolina. After working in private practice for eight years, Judge Childs received an appointment to serve as the Deputy Director for the …

Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, Cameron P. Hellerman

Fordham Law Review

Eminent domain is a powerful tool at the disposal of local, state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes two conditions on this sovereign power: the taking must be for “public use,” and the condemner must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. There are minimal guardrails in place to police potential misuse of the eminent domain power in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court equates “public use” with “public purpose” and applies a deferential standard of review to a condemner’s determination that a taking serves a public purpose. Nonetheless, the Court in Kelo v. City …

“Shipping” Away The Captive Audience Meeting, Nathan Kakalec

Fordham Law Review

On November 14, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned seventy-six years of labor law precedent by banning captive audience meetings in Amazon.com Services LLC. Captive audience meetings, mandatory meetings where employers discuss unionization with their employees, were a powerful anti-union tool used by employers to coerce their employees into rejecting unionization. The NLRB argues that captive audience meetings are inconsistent with § 7 and § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers reject the NLRB’s assertion and contend that banning captive audience meetings infringes on their First Amendment right to communicate their views on unionization. …

The Onondaga Nation's Land Claim: Rights Without A Remedy?, Larissa Speak

American Indian Law Journal

No abstract provided.