Constitutional Law Commons^™

Foreword: 2024 Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference: Artificial Intelligence And The Constitution, Suzette Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

For the first time, the Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law and the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship came together to hold a joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Constitution. We decided to merge our annual conferences to explore one of the most important and consequential intersections of our time: AI and the Constitution—topics we study and deeply care about. During this time of rapid and profound technological transformation, it is even more imperative that we come out of our academic silos and work together.

The partnership was destined. The …

Injunctive Restraint, Cassandra Burke Robertson

Faculty Publications

Preliminary injunctions against government action have evolved from extraordinary remedies into routine instruments of political contestation, with both Republican and Democratic administrations finding their initiatives halted by nationwide judicial orders. These injunctions serve vital functions in our constitutional system—preventing irreparable harm to fundamental rights and providing necessary checks on executive power in an era of congressional gridlock. Yet their increasing use has generated legitimate institutional concerns, particularly when a single district judge, often selected through strategic forum shopping, can unilaterally suspend national policies of significant importance. This Article examines this tension between the necessary role of nationwide injunctions in protecting …

The Eighth Amendment’S Paper Tiger: Pain, Executions, And The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Clause, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” This prohibition applies to the way states carry out executions: states may impose capital punishment but may not do so in a way that is unconstitutionally cruel. Over a trilogy of cases that began with Baze v. Rees in 2008, the Court developed a test for analyzing whether a state’s proposed method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Under Baze/Glossip/Bucklew, a person challenging a state’s method of execution must show that the method of execution poses a severe risk of “superadded” pain and suffering that can be alleviated by a readily …

Pushing Boundaries, Paula A. Monopoli

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was originally published in Balkinization as part of an online symposium and it is reprinted with permission. The essay engages with Julie Suk's book, After Misogyny: How the Law Fails Women and What to Do About It. It suggests that feminist legal scholars have been considering their intellectual options in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In After Misogyny, Professor Suk offers a conceptual path forward in a post-Dobbs world. Suk’s trenchant analysis of the failure of law to render substantive gender equality and her …

Policing As General Warrants, Warren Buff, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

The drafters of the Bill of Rights and its proponents envisioned a document constitutionalizing protections against some of the worst abuses they had experienced under English rule. Prominent businessmen—many of them engaged in smuggling— found their homes ransacked in search of contraband on flimsy evidence and without any reason given for the disruption of their business and consequent enrichment of government agents. The Fourth Amendment addressed the use of general warrants and writs of assistance to allow government agents to conduct broad searches with limited scrutiny. In the early years of the Constitution, this had little practical effect, because public …

Religious Exemptions To Anti-Discrimination Law: Children's Rights In The Constitutional Calculus, Tanya Washington, Catherine Smith, Robin Walker Sterling

Scholarly Articles

Increasingly, religious actors in the public sphere--whether in the provision of goods and services (Masterpiece Cakeshop) or in government contracting (Fulton)--are simply invoking a person's sexual orientation as inconsistent with their religious tenets to benefit from a legal doctrine that shields them from the requirement that they offer an underlying rationale for LGBTQ discrimination. Over the past decade, we have filed amicus briefs in United States Supreme Court cases advancing children's constitutional rights, including briefs providing a check on these religious-based arguments when they adversely impact children's rights in the familial and child regulation contexts and …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, And Attacks On Law Firms And The Rule Of Law, Raymond H. Brescia

Nevada Law Journal Forum

This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access …

Dobbs And The New Doctrine Of Stare Decisis, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

Alongside the historic and troubling annulment of the half-century-old Substantive Due Process right to abortion, Dobbs produced another significant outcome. To get its substantive constitutional law result, the Court’s majority also had to reconceive—and significantly weaken—the doctrine of stare decisis. This was necessary because, following Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the constitutional right to abortion largely depended on respect for precedent as the basis for its survival. To overturn Roe, the Dobbs majority had to blast through the established practice of precedent and articulate a new doctrine of stare decisis. It seems that precedent was meant to …

Kennedy V. Louisiana And The Future Of The Eighth Amendment, Alexandra L. Klein

Scholarly Articles

In 2023, Florida passed a law permitting the imposition of the death penalty for the rape of a child under twelve. Tennessee enacted a similar law in 2024. These laws conflict with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court held that imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child violated the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause because it was inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency. Legislators in Florida and Tennessee have expressed their hope that the Supreme Court will overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana. These laws, which resemble state attempts …

Navahine V. Hawai'i Dept. Of Transportation: The Keiki Will Lead Us, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

The author analyzes the landmark case Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, which culminated in the world’s first constitutional climate settlement. Catherine Smith, serving as an expert for the youth plaintiffs, situates the case within Hawaiʻi’s legal tradition of prioritizing children’s rights and intergenerational equity. She explores the evolution of children’s constitutional protections, contrasting Hawaiʻi’s progressive jurisprudence with the dominant adult-centric legal framework on the mainland. She critiques four recurring analytical missteps in U.S. courts that marginalize children’s interests and highlights Hawaiʻi’s public trust doctrine and cultural values, such as the Aloha Spirit, as models for addressing climate-related harms. …

Book Review The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years By John Paul Stevens, Stephen Wermiel

Book Reviews

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

In The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, Stevens who died in July 2019, at age 99, spent 130 pages on his life before he joined the Supreme Court and then 394 pages describing the decisions during his thirty-four year as a Justice. Stevens was an agile writer and did as good a job as anyone can of making the narrative accessible, but it …

Through A Glass Darkly: How Securities Disclosures Give A Distorted View Of The Economy, Gerald F. Davis

Seattle University Law Review

Our understanding of the American economy often relies on stylized facts derived from mandatory disclosures by listed corporations. Data vendors like Standard & Poor’s vacuum up 10Ks and proxy statements into databases, and scholars distill these into tentative maps. This may have been adequate for a postwar economy centered on asset-heavy manufacturers, but it is increasingly out of step with an information-based economy. Companies listed on the stock market are fewer in number and less representative than they were, light in tangible assets and people, and heavy on IP. Basic facts such as what industry they are in are increasingly …

Un-Fathering The Constitution, Lorianne Updike Toler

Connecticut Law Review

Constitutional law turns on Madison’s vision. This because Madison is universally acclaimed by the Supreme Court and legal academe as the Constitution’s father. However, Madison’s constitutional parentage sounds more in lore than logic.

A careful review of recent historiography, Madison’s own writings, and new analytics tools available on the Quill Project reveal Madison as much less important to the Constitution than previously thought. He did not bring about the Convention, did not write the Virginia Plan, and was not that influential at the Constitutional Convention. Immediately after the Convention, Madison considered himself and the Constitution a failure, and disclaimed any …

‘Cruel And Unusual’ In 1689, 1791, And 1868: Shifts In Incorporation, Gregory Velloze

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the scholarly debate over whether to apply the historical understanding of the Bill of Rights as ratified in 1791 or as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This acknowledgment raises two important issues with regards to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. First, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was copied from the English Bill of Rights in 1689, generating a third, additional time period relevant to its historical understanding. Second, the more textualist framework of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause allows for more relatively bounded language and interpretation, which could remain …

Editor-In-Chief’S Foreword, Megan Stupi

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Beyond Agency Authority: Regulating Sulfur Hexafluoride Under An Enhanced Title Ii Framework Of The Clean Air Act, Matthew Gawley

Fordham Environmental Law Review

This paper explores the critical need for robust Congressional action to regulate sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential more than 20,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. Recent Supreme Court decisions––in West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo––to restrict EPA authority and end the Chevron doctrine have curtailed federal environmental agencies’ regulatory authority, shifting the responsibility for addressing major environmental challenges back to Congress. Despite being addressed under Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), current SF6 regulations prove grossly inadequate. The utilities industry––the largest …

A Silence After Slaughter-House: Nineteenth-Century State Constitutional Substantive Rights, Liberties, And Privileges, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes

Faculty Publications

In rejecting federal constitutional challenges to the Louisiana legislature’s exclusive butchering grant in the Slaughter-House Cases, the United States Supreme Court opined that it was the states’ obligation to protect fundamental privileges, such as rights to acquire and possess property, engage in trade and commerce, and pursue happiness, subject only to those restraints necessary for the public good. But the states met this charge with silence. State courts across the nation consistently parroted Slaughter-House’s reasoning, even while occasionally acknowledging the decision did not bind their interpretation of state constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities. Although two states …

303 Creative, Exclusive Private Enforcement, And Blue-State Revenge, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard W. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

Red states have made exclusive private enforcement schemes targeting locally unpopular but constitutionally protected conduct a cornerstone of culture-war legal strategy. Laws such the Texas Heartbeat Act (“S.B. 8”) in 2021 and anti-“WOKE” laws forego public enforcement in favor of private enforcement; this precludes federal rights-holders from vindicating their rights through pre-enforcement offensive litigation in federal court against the government or government officials responsible for enforcing the law. This threatens rights-holders with defending a state-court wave of costly and burdensome litigation to adjudicate the law’s constitutional validity.

Blue states and liberal scholars and advocates have sought a progressive counterpart targeting …

The Political Question Of Public Lands, Ryan A. Semerad

Wyoming Law Review

The Property Clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution provides: “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” Thus, among other things, the Constitution assigns the disposal of federally owned lands to Congress alone. That means the other branches of the federal government, including the courts, have no jurisdiction to exercise this power or to compel Congress to use it. Put another way, when Congress does not dispose of public lands through sale or transfer, that inaction is not subject to …