Constitutional Law Commons^™

From Mallory To Morality: The Compatibility Of Registration-Jurisdiction Laws With The Dormant Commerce Clause, Matthew J. O'Hara

Buffalo Law Review

In June 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a case that threatened to cause the largest shift in personal jurisdiction law since Daimler AG and Bristol-Myers Squibb. While the Court upheld Pennsylvania’s registration jurisdiction law under the Due Process Clause and International Shoe’s “fair play and substantial justice” standard, Justice Alito’s concurrence opined that the law may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC). This Comment argues that registration-jurisdiction laws, which permit States to assert general personal jurisdiction over out-of-state businesses merely because they have registered to do business in the State, …

The Inevitability Of Adaptability - Comparative Contributions To Understanding Originalism, Anna C. Conley

Faculty Law Review Articles

What can comparative law teach us about originalism as a constitutional interpretation method? After synthesizing existing comparative analyses, this article seeks to redefine comparative law’s role in understanding originalism. When defining originalism strictly to require adherence to fixed original meaning, originalism is not used by courts anywhere in the world. Instead, courts use history purposively to understand the intent behind constitutional text as one of many methods of interpretation. Comparative works suggest historical constitutional interpretation has a complex relationship with rights, politics and culture.

Comparative law can provide not only descriptive understandings of originalism but also interrogate its mandate that …

Survivors Speak Out: Analyzing Minnesota's Anti-Slapp Law Through The Lens Of Johnson V. Freborg, Taylor Anderson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unpacking The 2024 Minnesota Era Language: A Litigator's Perspective, Jess Braverman

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Filling The Gaps: How An Environmental Rights Amendment Can Save Minnesota's Shorelines, Christine Gale

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Gadfly Of The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Persistence Of The Extraterritoriality Doctrine After National Pork Producers Council V. Ross, Karl Morton Badger

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Imperialism: The Supreme Court’S Assault On Tribal Sovereignty And The Rule Of Law, Adam Crepelle

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The rule of law requires predictability, and the rules governing Indian country create uncertainty. For example, determining whether a person can be arrested on a reservation depends upon a combination of whether the victim and perpetrators are Indians, the type of crime, and the status of the land where the incident occurred. The same goes for contract enforcement. Even when forum selection and choice of law provisions exist, it can take years to determine whether the dispute should be adjudicated in tribal, state, or federal court. Ambiguity extends to countless other areas, including marijuana legalization and usury caps.

Indian country’s …

The Unconstitutionality Of Governor Youngkin's Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme (Or Lack Thereof): An Examination Of Hawkins V. Youngkin'S Challenge To Virginia's Current Felon Re-Enfranchisement Scheme, Olivia Rovin

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

This Note argues that Governor Youngkin’s felon re-enfranchisement “scheme” violates the Constitution. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the argument made in Hawkins v. Youngkin, formerly known as Nolef Turns v. Youngkin, noting its strengths and its weaknesses. Part I describes both American history and Virginia’s specific history of denying people convicted of felonies their right to vote. It also details the Supreme Court case, Richardson v. Ramirez, in which the Court held that denying people convicted of a felony the right to vote is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Part I also gives a brief history …

Manifesting A Shift In The "Overton Window": The Threat Of Project 2025 On The Lgbtq+ Community In Higher Education, Athena M. King, Sara Sanatkar

Political Science & Geography Faculty Publications

Since the first Trump administration, historically marginalized groups in the United States have been subjected to greater instances of bigotry and discrimination due to conservative influence on sociopolitical institutions. These actions suggest a shift in the "Overton Window," whereby policy preferences previously deemed "unacceptable" are given consideration in the mainstream, especially by conservative policy actors. "Project 2025" is a comprehensive plan to restructure the federal government according to conservative dictates in the second Trump administration. This article is an examination of how higher education may be impacted by this plan, especially as it relates to LGBTQ+ faculty, administration, staff, and …

The Reedy Creek Improvement District: A Comparative Analysis Underscoring The Problems In Hampering Special Districts, J. Patrick Moll

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 2022, the Florida legislature passed a bill that removed the administration of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the special district governing the Walt Disney World Resort. The bill replaced it with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. Governor Ron DeSantis hailed this legislation as a success in reigning in a corporation operating with unchecked and unprecedented levels of governmental authority. Since its inception, however, the replacement administration has contended with claims of ethical violations, inefficiency, and unconstitutional enactment. Before the repeal of the Walt Disney World special district, special districts themselves were not often present in the Nation’s everyday …

War Courts: Fdr, National Security, And The War On Terrorism, Harvey Gee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Lewd, Rude, Obscene, And… Violent? Analyzing Student Clothing Depicting Firearms Under The First Amendment’S Obscenity Test, Luke Gorman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today’s national news and social media have repeatedly exposed our school-age children to the effects of shootings occurring within their schools and communities. Each shooting brings with it commentary, sometimes from the students themselves. While in-school student speech is more limited than speech levied in the outside world, students do not shed their speech rights at the “schoolhouse gate.” As a result, courts have failed to outline a consistent approach for when a student will be punished for wearing a shirt depicting a firearm to school. This Comment addresses this delicate balance by proposing a consistent three-part test framed by …

Internet Search Engines’ Privacy Violations And The Lack Of Federal Regulation To Protect Consumers Rights, Elsa M. G. Rodriguez Ogando

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The United States’ current legal framework regarding internet search engines is disadvantageous to consumers. Federal privacy laws (although not encompassing search engines) grant businesses a strong legal basis in privacy claims and alibies for arbitrary behavior; these laws favor businesses over consumers. Moreover, state privacy laws empower nonspecific agencies to oversee privacy matters and enforce consumers’ rights. Thus, the U.S. privacy legal framework is in need of a new federal law that establishes consumers’ rights, as well as a federal agency dedicated solely to privacy matters. This Article proposes a federal law recommendation based on the standards of the California …

Dobbs V. Brown, Benjamin H. Barton

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court …

The Violence Of Bright Lines, Terrell Woolfolk, Kathryn E. Miller

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Eighth Amendment to prohibit members of certain groups from serving extreme punishments, such as the death penalty and life without parole. For example, the Court has long banned death sentences for people with intellectual disability and for those who were under eighteen years old at the time of their crime. More recently, in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the Court extended this reasoning to sentences of life without parole for those under eighteen—prohibiting the sentence altogether for nonhomicide crimes and barring its mandatory imposition for homicides.

Many scholars and advocates have …

Ecarrots: Prison Control And Profits From Correctional Tablets, Justin Iverson

Scholarly Works

In recent years, tablets have gained tremendous popularity behind bars for their ability to expand access to educational and rehabilitative services for people in prison. However, there are downsides to tablet implementation, including high costs at the expense of a captive population and shifting power dynamics resulting in possible volatility. This Article examines the use of correctional tablets in jails and prisons as mechanisms for administrative control and profit-making in an era of beleaguered correctional budgets. It also considers legal and policy implications related to the disproportionately negative impact of the introduction of tablets on people in poverty, increased dependency …

"A Plain Denial”: Reclaiming Equal Protection In American Juvenile Law, Addie C. Rolnick, David S. Tanenhaus, Justin Iverson, Danielle L. Silvestri

Scholarly Works

Juvenile courts are based on the premise that children are different from adults and should therefore be treated differently. Children may be treated more informally by courts, punished for different purposes, and brought before the court for different behaviors. Since In re Gault, the Supreme Court has been clear that there are limits to how different juvenile courts can be. Juveniles are entitled to many of the same procedural protections as adult criminal defendants, although the Court has preserved some procedural differences where it has determined that their benefit is outweighed by the need to preserve the informality, flexibility, …

A Right To Be Born?: What Dobbs Could Mean For Artificial Reproductive Technologies, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Structural Originalism: A Second Amendment Case Study, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

“Originalism” is having a national moment, even if it is not entirely clear what the word means. What should we be originalist about? The leading academic approach asks us to parse the communicative content of text ratified in a very different linguistic culture; then construct a modern legal meaning consistent with our semantic speculations. Too often the result enforces policy judgments made in a radically different moral and technological world. This makes very little sense.

In this paper I recommend a more perspicuous and coherent use of constitutional history, which I call “structural originalism.” Rather than saddle ourselves with the …

Structuring The President’S Removal Power: An Agency-Specific Approach, Peter Margulies

American University Law Review

Recent Supreme Court decisions have taken a broad view of the President’s power to remove executive branch officials. According to the Court, the President’s Article II obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” generally requires that the President have authority to remove officials at will. The Court has thus far declined to overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision upholding “forcause” restrictions on removal for multi-member “quasi-judicial” bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Nonetheless, recent Court decisions have eroded the rationale in the earlier case, which has received additional attention because of efforts …