Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Constitutional Right To Peremptory Challenges In Jury Selection, Richard Lorren Jolly

Vanderbilt Law Review

The peremptory challenge is one of the oldest and most well-established jury selection procedures. Its use dates back to the earliest days of English common law, and it was a firmly established and protected practice at the United States’ founding and into the early twentieth century. But while peremptory challenges are foundational, they remain perhaps the most controversial aspect of jury selection today. This is because they are regularly used by the government and private parties to advance racist, sexist, and bigoted ends. For this reason, over the last three decades, calls to abolish the practice have been regularly made …

The Process Before The Promise: Ensuring Indigenous Recognition From The Chilean Constitution, Michaela Mazzeo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Part I of this Note provides a background and overview of the relatively recent surge in the constitutionalization of indigenous rights and recognition in Latin America, and the state of constitutional reform in Chile. Part II lays out a theoretical understanding of the powers of a constitution as a mechanism for societal reformation and as a platform for bringing legal claims, as played out in Brazil and Bolivia. Part III demonstrates the ways in which practical manifestation of that theoretical power stops short. More specifically, both intentional and incidental barriers dampen the effectiveness of the constitutional mechanism for ensuring indigenous …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Editor-In-Chief’S Foreword, Megan Stupi

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

The Ninth Circuit’S Rfra Standard Of “Substantial Burden” As Applied To Native American Sacred Sites, Erik Renner

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

This paper focuses on the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the “substantial burden” standard under RFRA as it is applied to Native American sacred site cases. This paper looks at the old Ninth Circuit’s standard as set out in Navajo Nation, and its new standard as set out in Apache Stronghold. By understanding how the courts, specifically the Ninth Circuit, have limited their definition of the “substantial burden” under RFRA in sacred site cases, this paper will argue that the standard should be expanded to include “preventing religious exercise.” This expansion of what is a “substantial burden” under RFRA will better …

How To Impeach A Verdict: A Response To Melanie C. Regis, Cynara Hermes Mcquillan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Popularity Contest: Is An Independent Judiciary Compatible With Popular Constitutionalism?, Lulu S. Faulk

Indiana Law Journal

Can the theory of popular constitutionalism—where the people have authority to shape constitutional law—exist alongside judicial independence? On the surface, these two ideas seem like contestants in a popularity contest: Popular constitutionalism embraces the will of the people in defining constitutional law, while judicial independence insists that judges disregard any and all external pressure in an effort to uphold the tenets of the Constitution even when they are unpopular. The contrast of these competing ideas is all the more evident with recent Supreme Court decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, demonstrating a deviation from majority opinion in …

Table Of Contents - Cardozo Journal Of Equal Rights & Social Justice, Vol. 31, Iss. 1

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Obvious Violation Exception To Qualified Immunity: An Empirical Study, Bailey D. Barnes

Washington Law Review

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for discretionary actions, as long as the violated right is not clearly established. A right is deemed established when every reasonable official would understand it based on precedent, placing it beyond debate, such that only the plainly incompetent may be held liable. Consequently, even when an act infringes on one’s civil rights, a court may deny relief owing to a lack of factually comparable precedent. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court indicated its distrust for overreliance on precedent in certain contexts. In Taylor v. Riojas, the Court held that prison officials …

Transportation Racism And State-Created Danger: A Civil Rights Litigation Strategy For Pedestrians Harmed By Traffic Violence, Riley Freedman

Washington Law Review

Pedestrian fatality rates in the United States are markedly high compared to peer nations and are on the rise. The distribution of these deaths shows an alarming racial gap: Black pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed compared to white pedestrians. One significant factor that explains the disparity is the greater presence of wide, high-speed roads—built to move traffic quickly at the expense of pedestrian safety—in Black neighborhoods. In some cases, there is evidence that governments intentionally placed roads through and around Black neighborhoods for racially discriminatory reasons.

This Comment argues that a pedestrian harmed or killed by a …

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie: A Comparative Analysis Of The Dormant Commerce Clause And Internal Trade Barrier Mitigation, Naman Patel

Washington Law Review

The Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the United States has been one of the most widely criticized doctrines of American constitutional law. However, most of these criticisms fail to consider the economic implications of the Dormant Commerce Clause, namely the benefits this doctrine has provided in facilitating internal free trade amongst the states. This Comment argues that the Dormant Commerce Clause has given American courts an effective tool to promote interstate free trade by removing state regulations that create non-tariff barriers to trade. To support this assertion, this Comment utilizes a comparative constitutional analysis to examine how the constitutional systems …

Is The Constitution Of 1787 A White Supremacist Document? Against Essentialism In Constitutional Interpretation, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

A curious convergence is emerging in legal academia around the conclusion that the 1787 Constitution is a white supremacist document. Although most originalists would deny that contention, their methodology strongly favors, if it does not compel, an agreement with progressive, “neo-Garrisonian” scholars that the Constitution of 1787 is indeed a white supremacist document. Both the neo-Garrisonian and originalist elements of this implicit convergence stem from their “essentialism” in Constitutional interpretation: the idea that the Constitution or its terms or provisions carry a uniquely and objectively correct meaning, invariant over time, and independent of our evolving normative commitments.

This Article argues …

Section Three Of The Fourteenth Amendment: Insurrection, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The public, scholarly, and legal debate over whether former president Donald Trump is eligible to hold office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment has focused far more on technical legal questions than on whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. Scholarly and public commentary rarely examines the constitutional/ common law of insurrection, preferring instead to examine whether Trump is exempt from Section Three because Section Three either exempts presidents or the presidency from disqualification or because Section Three is not self-executing. Trump v. Anderson (2024) focused on state incapacity to disqualify “oathbreaking insurrectionists” rather than on whether Trump was an …

Life, Liberty, And Freedom From Non-Consensual Pelvic Exams?, Michaela Cotton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[T]here is a need for the federal government to intervene and finally ban the practice of performing non-consensual pelvic exams, and it can do so under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the right to refuse involuntary medical treatment. Part I will provide a brief overview of pelvic exams and informed consent; Part II draws on policy considerations for banning this practice and tackles counter-arguments; Part III will discuss the relevant federal law and case precedent; Part IV demonstrates how federal law applies to non-consensual pelvic exams; and, finally, Part V will further explain the need …

Balancing Tradition And Inclusion: Framework Principles For An Afghan Accord, M. Hamed Isar

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines the turbulent constitutional history of Afghanistan and proposes a pragmatic constitutional framework balancing Islamic principles with rights, protections, and constraints on power. After analyzing the Taliban’s current extraconstitutional rule and ideological objections to an inclusive order, it makes the case for principled compromise. The first step to constitutional reform for Afghanistan is to recognize that Afghans, the Taliban, and the international community pay a high price for disregarding law and accountability in governance. To that end, this Article canvasses the many factors that could motivate the Taliban to accept the rule of law, despite the constraints it …

Excluded But Equal, Gali Racabi

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Work law is excessively exclusionary. Canonical examples include agriculture workers, independent contractors, and domestic workers. But work law excludes far more workers and employers than those familiar categories. Whole sectors, occupations, business sizes, wage arrangements, geographical areas, and more are excluded from the basic tenets of economic citizenship, including federal, state, and local minimum wage; overtime; and safety and labor protection laws.

Equal protection claims govern the authority of legislatures to determine who is in and who is out of work laws. Excluded workers and included employers now routinely use state and federal constitutional equal protection arguments against exclusionary work …

The First Amendment In Education: May Faculty At Public Schools Be Disciplined For Political Hate Speech?, Ken M. Levy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

At a House hearing on December 5, 2023, the presidents of three universities— Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania—refused to state that certain kinds of hate speech, specifically calls for genocide of Jews, are prohibited on their campuses. The backlash against two of them, Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill, was swift and devastating; both were successfully pressured to resign. Still, while Professors Gay’s and Magill’s responses were widely criticized as tone-deaf, they were legally correct. At many private, and all public, colleges and universities, even the worst hate speech is generally protected unless it is accompanied by …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Advancing Academic Freedom Through State Constitutional Protections, Karlie M. Bischoff

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

The Unbearable Inevitability Of Content Regulation, Jerome O’Callaghan

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.