Constitutional Law Commons^™

Moral Politics Theory Applied To Abortion: Utopias, Dystopias, And Dobbs, Susan Ayres

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines Moral Politics Theory (MPT) as a way to understand current tensions in the US concerning reproductive justice. MPT, as developed and researched for over thirty years by cognitive scientist, George Lakoff, provides a way to explain differences in political worldviews. According to Lakoff’s research in Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant!, conservatives tend to hold a strict-father model, and progressives hold a nurturant-parent model. People in the political middle tend to endorse both models; Lakoff labels those in the middle as “biconceptuals,” and discusses how this group is most susceptible to persuasion because metaphors frame …

Original Discontent, William Magnuson

Faculty Scholarship

There are many theories of constitutional interpretation. Most, but not all, of them assert that, in interpreting the Constitution’s provisions, we should start by taking seriously the intentions of the enactors, meaning, roughly speaking, its drafters, defenders and ratifiers. This Article argues that, in doing so, judges, scholars and policymakers have underestimated an important feature of the process of constitution-making: the discontent of the enactors themselves with the Constitution they were enacting. Time and again, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, during the penning of the Federalist Papers, and during the state ratifying conventions, the enactors expressed deep reservations about …

The Immigration Subpoena Power, Lindsay Nash

Articles

For over a century, the federal government has wielded the immigration subpoena power in darkness, forcing private individuals, subfederal governments, and others to help it detain and deport. This vast administrative power has remained opaque even to those who receive these subpoenas and invisible to those it affects most. Indeed, the very people targeted by these subpoenas often don’t know they exist, much less how they facilitate arrest and deportation. For these reasons—and more—this power has escaped the legal battles raging over other immigration enforcement tactics and the scrutiny of journalists, scholars, and courts. Thus, as state- and locality-held information …

Sffa V. Harvard: Racial Triangulation And The Invidious Myth Of Colorblindness, Philip Lee

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case in which the Supreme Court ended the longstanding practice of race-conscious admissions in higher education, Asian Americans were used as a wedge between White people and non-Asian minorities to eradicate a mechanism that fostered greater racial diversity in student bodies in many highly selective institutions across the country. A majority of Supreme Court justices justified their decision in the name of “colorblindness.” However, the way the justices positioned Asian Americans against other people of color was not colorblind. It was consistent with …

The Sword, The Purse, And The Pen: The Constitutional Conundrum Of Impoundment, William N. Chance

CMC Senior Theses

This Thesis explores the constitutional conundrum of executive impoundment, the practice by which the President of the United States withholds or delays the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress. Although impoundment has deep historical roots dating back to the Constitution’s Framers, its modern use raises profound questions regarding our separation of powers. This Thesis establishes a functional framework that distinguishes between “routine” impoundments, which promote administrative efficiency, and “policy” impoundments, which may undermine congressional intent. Furthermore, after tracing the development of impoundment from the early Republic through the Nixon Administration and the passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, …

Avoiding Spacex's Giant Leap Backwards For Mankind: Why The Nlrb Leadership Is Constitutionally Protected And How To Keep It That Way, Clara Goldrich

Brooklyn Law Review

Companies like SpaceX and Amazon are arguing in federal court that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unconstitutionally protects its Members and administrative law judges (ALJs) from presidential removal. President Donald Trump’s firing of Member Gwynne Wilcox, the ensuing litigation, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in an analogous case, Trump v. Slaughter, has kicked the constitutional question of NLRB leadership removal protections into high gear. This Note examines the constitutionality of NLRB Member and ALJ removal protections. Under current Supreme Court precedent, NLRB Member removal protections are likely constitutional. However, the Court has recently signaled …

Undercover Investigations, Deception, And Democracy, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

How The Antidiscrimination Law Of Commercial Transactions Really Works, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

From Gods To Google, Rebecca Aviel, Margot Kaminski, Toni M. Massaro, Andrew Keane Woods

Publications

The First Amendment has become a significant barrier to sensible technology regulation. The conventional explanation for this is the Court's deregulatory turn in free-speech law. But the Lochnerization story is incomplete. The Court's profound solicitude for religious speakers plays a central role in the current digital-free-expression landscape. By protecting the speech of certain religious dissidents, the Court has created a set of constitutional entitlements that logically extend to technology firms. Along the way, the Court has eroded its ability to apply the First Amendment sensibly to novel technologies.

This Feature draws the doctrinal through line from gods to Google. We …

Contesting "Address": Conflicts Over The Words We Use To Address And Refer To Each Other, Helen Norton

Publications

Professor Richard Brooks's generative insights provide us with valuable tools for recognizing, and trying to make sense of, address's role in human interactions. That "address"--the words we use to address and refer to each other--has the potential both to offer value and to inflict harm to these interactions sometimes triggers conflict over appropriate forms of address. In this Commentary to Professor Brooks's Frankel Lecture, I examine some of these conflicts.

As we'll see, some address conflicts involve debates over whether and when address actually makes meaning or whether it’s instead relatively trivial--while others involve contestants who agree that address makes …

Dangerousness And The Undocumented, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

The Supreme Court's most recent Second Amendment opinion, United States v. Rahimi, centers the question of dangerousness in right to bear arms challenges. There, the Court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal criminal prohibition on possession of firearms by those subject to a civil domestic violence order, opining that legislatures could regulate the right to bear arms of those who were proven credible threats to public safety. Rahimi, however, left open the question whether dangerousness might be imputed to an entire group, absent individual determinations of threat or danger. The several lower federal court cases adjudicating 18 U.S.C. § …

Breaking Kayfabe, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The membership of the Supreme Court affects how it decides cases. This maxim is well accepted among the public. But it is exceedingly rare for Supreme Court opinions to acknowledge this fact, even when it provides the best explanation for the Court’s behavior. And in the unusual instance in which Supreme Court opinions do refer to changes in the Court’s membership, it is jarring. This Article explores two questions that flow from these uncontroversial facts. First, why does it happen so rarely? Second, why does it happen at all?

To answer these questions, the Article looks to an unusual source: …

Discriminatory Censorship Laws, Jonathan Feingold, Joshua Weishart

Faculty Scholarship

The summer of 2020 ignited global protests for racial justice. Across the United States, millions marched with a modest plea: that America reckon with its racism. For K-12 schools, this moment pushed local communities and district leaders to create more inclusive classrooms and curricula. Yet before the summer had ended, America's antiracist turn provoked a backlash campaign that has proven far more impactful and enduring.

This campaign has featured the rise and spread of "discriminatory censorship laws"-a term we apply to government action designed to demean inclusionary values and to deny students access to critical knowledge, inquiry, and thinking. As …

The Major Questions Doctrine, Post-Chevron?: Skidmore, Loper-Bright, And A Good-Faith Emergency Question Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

When my students and colleagues fretted about Chevron's fate, I have said, "Worry less. Skid-more." Just as old Skidmore "weight" or "respect" returns post-Chevron, the new (and newer) major questions doctrine(s) survive as a reason to give less weight to an agency interpretation. This symposium essay suggests a special role for the post-Chevron major questions doctrine: an Emergency Questions Doctrine. When the executive asserts an emergency power, when the statutory basis is open-ended (often for very good reasons), majorness means less deference to simple and fast textualism, and more time for courts to engage in deeper purposivism to …

Amicus In Wilcox V. Trump On Presidential Removal And Unitary Executive Theorists’ Errors, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As courts ask whether Free Enterprise and Seila Law call into question Humphrey’s Executor and independent officers or agencies, the more immediate questions should be focused on new historical evidence and new fact-checking finding pervasive and repeated historical errors and misinterpretations at the foundation of the unitary executive theory of removal.

Since the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, a wave of new historical research has shown that the Founding generation did not understand Article II to grant the President an indefeasible removal power over executive officials. In response, pro-unitary executive scholars have tried to offer new historical support. That …

The Endorsement Test's Early Years, 1983-1985: Notes From The O'Connor Files, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

One of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s signature contributions to U.S. constitutional law was the endorsement test, a subtle but critically important reformulation of the Court’s then prevailing approach to applying the Establishment Clause that focused on the message sent by government action supporting religion and the potentially harmful effects of that message on religious minorities and the political community. Now that the current Court has discarded the endorsement test, leaving the government freer than ever to support religion in a variety of ways, we should expect to see the harms that Justice O’Connor cared about become increasingly widespread and prevalent. …

Originalisms' Indifferences?: Friendly Amendments To Sherif Girgis's "Originalism's Difference?", Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Sherif Girgis’s Lecture Originalism’s Differences? reflects on what had differentiated originalism from other methods and why those differences are eroding. The differences are (or were): (1) avoiding “ostentatious moral reasoning”; (2) relatedly, constraining judges by requiring originalist historical evidence (i.e., tying judges’ hands); and (3) engaging historical research with more “intensity.” Girgis rightly criticizes the Court for engaging in the same kind of flexibility and creativity that originalists had long rejected.

In this commentary, I highlight our areas of agreement and offer friendly amendments. My title takes Girgis’s title two or three steps further: I use an “s-apostrophe” because I …

Under What Circumstances Is "Caste" Likely To Be Useful As An Analytic Concept (And Should We Care)?, Sanford V. Levinson, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay is the product of the 2025 “Constitutional Law Schmooze,” where academics from a variety of disciplines and from all over the country meet to discuss a common topic of constitutional law chosen by the moderator. This year’s topic was “caste.” The two of us, having written independent “tickets” of admission for the schmooze—i.e., short essays setting out our tentative thoughts about “caste”—turned out to be relative skeptics about the value of the term for lawyers. We are certainly not hostile to those who differ with us. This should be regarded as a “friendly dissent,” as distinguished, say, from …

Into The Legal “Twilight Zone”: State Tenth Amendment Jurisdiction Displacing Climate Supremacy, Steven Ferrey

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution notwithstanding, western states have utilized their reserved Tenth Amendment Constitutional authority, upheld by federal circuit courts, arbitrarily to block their adjacent states’ sustainable infrastructure to address climate change. The Biden Administration set in motion a rapid electrification of the entire U.S. economy via three different new laws enacted sequentially in 2021, 2022, and 2023. A re-directed federal executive branch now oversees these programs and laws. This Article analyzes how each of those three laws suffers from a critical omission plaguing this most significant infrastructure program in the last half century—now forecast counter-intuitively by some …

Is Originalism Bullshit?, Michael L. Smith

Lewis & Clark Law Review

It’s finally time to answer the big question. This Article draws on the surprisingly robust literature examining the definition, essence, and significance of bullshit and evaluates whether originalist constitutional interpretation fits the bill. I begin with Harry Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit as utterances made in pursuit of the speaker’s goals without regard for their truth value. I also rely on alternate formulations, including bullshit as unclarifiable nonsense as well as contextual and audience-centric variations of bullshit.

While not all instances of originalism are bullshit, I identify those instances which are, and go on to demonstrate that originalism is uniquely prone …