Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Abuses Of History In Constitutional Interpretation, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Jack Balkin’s Memory and Authority powerfully describes the kaleidoscopic quality of historical arguments in constitutional law. The book also moves easily between description and prescription. This Essay explores whether it moves too easily from one to the other. I consider whether the book’s analysis is so keen to capture our actual practices that it leaves itself too few resources for evaluating them—whether its account of history’s uses, made expansive by a zeal to fit how lawyers actually reason, crowds out any robust account of how they ought not to reason. While I am inclined to think so, …

An Analysis Of The Constitutionality Of Florida's 2024 Hb 3: “Online Protections For Minors,” Comparative To Other State Regulations Of The Internet, Evan J. Siegel

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines the constitutionality of the Florida House of Representatives’ 2024 priority bill, HB 3: “Online Protections for Minors,” through its ongoing litigation in North Florida. The broad nature of the bill, which is now Florida law, and its burden on accessing constitutionality protected speech and/or expression may not be consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. How the law defines and shapes what material may be accessible to people on the Internet, or the means they would need to use to create a social media account, are questions many other courts have begun …

Doubting Thomas And Questioning Stare Decisis Under The Roberts Court, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

The article critically examines the erosion of stare decisis under the Roberts Court, highlighting concerns about the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn established precedents. While acknowledging the importance of stare decisis in maintaining stability and equality, the author argues that its practical value is being undermined by ideological polarization and a departure from traditional legal reasoning. The article questions the Court's recent approach to precedent, particularly in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and critiques the conservative majority's aggressive use of judicial power.

Gerard V. Bradley And The American Law Of Church And State, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper provides an overview and appreciation of Prof. Gerard V. Bradley’s scholarly contributions to the American constitutional law of church and state. The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, handed down a number of closely watched and much-remarked-on rulings in cases involving the First Amendment’s Religion Clause and various religion-related statutes. The Court has moved the law of religious freedom and church–state relations toward coherence and clarity, and better aligned it with American history, tradition, and practice, and with an appropriate understanding of judges’ capacities and of the judicial role in a democracy. It appears …

The Keys To The Kingdom: The Unexpectedly Unsettled Definitions Of Security And Sale And The Overruling Of Chevron, Joel Seligman

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article explores two important unresolved questions for the Federal Securities regulation under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The definition of security and the definition of sale were increasingly contested and potentially unstable before the United States Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled the Chevron doctrine.

Brief For Tax Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners In Learning Resources (No. 24-1287) And Respondents In V.O.S. Selection (No. 25-250), Conor Clarke, Jon Endean, Ari Glogower, Daniel J. Hemel

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Constitution gives Congress, and not the President, the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” The Constitution also mandates that revenue measures begin in the House of Representatives, requires that such measures be geographically uniform, and prohibits the states from imposing import duties without congressional consent. Read together with Article I’s vesting of “all legislative Powers” in Congress and the familiar requirements of bicameralism and presentment, these provisions reflect a recurring constitutional commitment: Tariffs are national and legislative—and thus to be determined by a representative Congress.

History bolsters these textual commitments. State conflict over import duties …

The Original Function Of Tax Apportionment, Conor Clarke, Peter J. Wiedenbeck

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Constitution’s requirement that direct taxes be apportioned by state population is both confounding and important. At best, tax apportionment is regarded as reflecting the unique federalism concerns of the Founding; at worst, it is viewed as a tainted product of the constitutional compromise over slavery. And, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. United States (2024)—which refused to rule out that apportionment might be required for taxes on unrealized gains—tax apportionment is the subject of renewed legal and scholarly interest.

We consider one historical dimension of tax apportionment that has not been developed elsewhere: its original …

Lessons Learned From The Trump Rule Of Law Stress Test: Beware Bad Faith Actors, Brian Z. Tamanaha

Scholarship@WashULaw

The second Trump Administration has engaged in a vast swath of actions that press against the outer boundaries of legality. These actions provide a unique opportunity to identify potential vulnerabilities and expose how the rule of law can be undermined. While I will elucidate well-known points along the way, my primary aim is to bring out aspects of the rule of law that usually go unnoticed or under the radar. After setting out basic aspects of the rule of law, I cover three topics: 1) adhering to the truth, 2) pretextual arguments, and 3) flooding the field with actions and …

Brief In Support Of Respondents As Amici Curiae, Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Et. Al, No. 25-332, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Jonathan Gienapp

Scholarship@WashULaw

In the years since this Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), legal historians—including originalists—have unearthed a rich body of evidence challenging the conventional wisdom concerning the scope of the President’s removal powers at the Founding. Revisiting not only the Framers’ intellectual influences, but also their driving philosophical concerns and political incentives, this scholarship explains that removal authority was not understood to be vested exclusively in the President as a matter of settled constitutional law, but rather was permissibly exercised by various actors in various ways, intentionally not settled by the …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

One hundred and twenty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of the single most notorious opinions ever rendered, striking down a New York labor law for violating a right to contract found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. The era of Lochner v. NY (1905) is well past us, but not the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the President, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts. Bringing together two lines of case-law-on …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

Scholarship@WashULaw

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Rational Gridlock, Scott Baker, Michael D. Gilbert

Scholarship@WashULaw

We examine the design of lawmaking institutions when advocates have agenda setting power and there is randomness in the status quo laws eligible for reform. The institutional designer maximizes voter welfare. We find that the optimal arrangement consists of two lawmaking institutions that must agree to enact any reforms. The institutions do not share preferences with one another or with the median voter. As a result, gridlock arises: the institutions reject some reforms that the median voter favors. However, when reform succeeds, it tends to be modest in scope and to more closely track what the median voter prefers. The …

The Curiously Minor Role Of Minor V. Happersett (Foreword), Susan Frelich Appleton, Travis Crum, Hannah Keidan

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Foreword introduces a symposium marking the 150th anniversary of Minor v. Happersett, a Supreme Court decision unanimously holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not enfranchise women. Notwithstanding its impact on the women's suffrage movement and the subsequent ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, Minor presents a puzzle: it is a relatively obscure precedent that remains deeply relevant to contemporary legal debates. To elucidate this point, this Foreword juxtaposes Minor with two notorious Supreme Court decisions: Dred Scott and Dobbs.

Like Dred Scott, Minor pairs a morally repugnant result with legalistic reasoning. But whereas …

Viability As Abortion-Rights Orthodoxy, Susan Frelich Appleton

Scholarship@WashULaw

Borrowing a quotation from Justice Jackson’s influential opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Professors Linda McClain and James Fleming have named their ambitious and illuminating new book “What Shall Be Orthodox” in Polarized Times. As Justice Jackson wrote in applying the First Amendment to protect school children with familial objections to a required flag salute: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act …

The Practice Of Executive Constitutionalism, Conor Clarke, Daniel Epps

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Executive Branch must inevitably interpret the Constitution. Although departmentalists and judicial supremacists disagree about the scope of the Executive’s constitutional authority, few believe the Constitution is only for the courts. But what are the practices through which the Executive Branch interprets the Constitution and translates those interpretations into concrete decisions? What is their history? And what, if anything, is distinctive about them? While a rich and growing literature has examined some aspects of these questions, scholars have not broadly canvased the most central tools by which the Executive Branch shapes and implements constitutional law, or considered what makes them …

You Had One Job: The Supreme Court's New Chance To Fix The Constitutional Law Of Sentencing Factfinding, Benjamin J. Priester

Faculty Articles

Four decades after the enactment of the federal Sentencing Reform Act, one might expect a settled consensus to have emerged addressing the constitutional constraints on implementing norms such as predictability, consistency, and uniformity in the imposition of criminal punishment in the United States. In reality, the United States Supreme Court has failed to provide stability or clarity in the doctrinal principles implicated in millions of criminal cases nationwide. Spanning a quarter century, the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases has featured narrow or fragmented majorities, significant concurring opinions, and multiple instances of individual justices either overtly admitting to changing …

Historical Tradition, The Second Amendment, And Marrying Gun Rights And Regulation: Examining The Proposals In Gavin Newsom's Twenty-Eighth Amendment And Their Place In Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Guy Cheatham

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

In September 2017, Stephen Paddock checked into rooms 32-134 and 32- 135 at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Both rooms looked over the Route 91 Festival in Las Vegas Village. Over the course of five days, Paddock brought twenty-two suitcases into his room: five on September 25th, seven on the 26th, two on the 28th, six on the 30th, and two on October 1st. On September 30th, Paddock placed “Do Not Disturb” signs on the doors of rooms 32-134 and 32-135. Paddock considered booking the high level suites for weeks; Google searches from May to September 2017 reveal …

Professors And Company Law: Implications For Academic Freedom, Salar Ghahramani J.D.

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

This Article examines the intersection of company law and academic freedom, specifically exploring how nonprofit universities might invoke corporate and agency law principles to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims when a university could view a professor’s handling of controversial topics or facilitation of provocative class discussions as detrimental to its financial interests or public reputation. Such allegations might arise when universities perceive that these discussions alienate donors, provoke public backlash, or otherwise harm the institution’s standing, thereby framing the professor’s academic choices as potentially disloyal or harmful to the university. While public university professors might argue that the First …

How Does The Modern Supreme Court Treat The Idea Of Retribution In The Context Of Capital Punishment?, Paige Forsberg

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis explores the modern U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of retribution in the context of capital punishment, analyzing how justices have framed and justified the death penalty as a form of justice. Through the examination of key Supreme Court rulings and legal arguments, this study evaluates the evolving role of retribution in the Court’s decisions on death penalty cases, highlighting how judicial reasoning has shifted over time in response to legal, philosophical, and societal developments.

Retribution, long considered one of the primary justifications for capital punishment, is examined through a nuanced lens in this study. While historically viewed as a …

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …