Constitutional Law Commons^™

The New Insular Cases, Willie Santana

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

The Insular Cases is a name given to a series of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the status of the territories the United States acquired at the turn of the twentieth century. The Insular Cases rely on outmoded assumptions about the peoples who live in those islands, ninety-eight percent of whom belong to racial and ethnic minorities, and extend the extraconstitutional doctrine of territorial incorporation, a Plessy-style doctrine of separate governance for these territories that is different than the territories that preceded them. These cases, and the doctrine they announced, have been universally decried as …

A State Within A State: Re-Examining The Federal Lands Question And Its Effect On State Sovereignty, David Wilde

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

Though the path of the public lands debate is well-trodden, this Note will seek to answer the question in novel ways. First, it uses the Corpus of Founding Era American English to perform an objective linguistic analysis of the phrase “dispose of” in the Property Clause. Through this analysis, it appears that an ordinary person at the time the Constitution was adopted would most likely have read the phrase “dispose of” in the Property Clause to mean sell, give away, bestow, or put into another’s hand or power.

Next, this Note investigates the historical and philosophical understandings of state sovereignty …

The President Of The Senate, The Original Public Meaning Of The Twelfth Amendment, And The Electoral Count Reform Act, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

When Congress convenes under the Twelfth Amendment and the votes of presidential electors are counted, there are three different responsibilities to consider. First, who presides over the joint session where counting takes place, and what is the role of that presiding officer? Second, who counts the electoral votes? Third, who resolves disputes about those electoral votes?

This Essay answers those questions. First, the presiding officer in the joint session is the President of the Senate, and she acts as any other presiding officer of a legislature. She initiates actions pursuant to precedent, parliamentary procedures, and the wishes of the chamber. …

Gouverneur Morris And The Drafting Of The Federalist Constitution, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Salmon P. Chase Colloquium series has had two themes: One is great moments in constitutional law, and the other is people who have been forgotten but should not have been. This colloquium is primarily in the latter category—it is about a forgotten founder of the Constitution. But the Constitution has more than one forgotten founder. I did a Google search this afternoon for “Forgotten Founder” and there are a whole series of books on various people who are the Constitution’s Forgotten Founder. So the Chase Colloquium series has another decade of subjects: Luther Martin, George Mason, Charles Pinckney, Roger …

Life After Dobbs, Gerard V. Bradley

Journal Articles

The article begins, "The  Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now over rule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." It is now one year, and one full election cycle, since the Supreme Court closed its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization with those words. That is time enough to gauge how the "people and their elected representatives" have used the authority "return[ed]" to them.

The American Tradition Of Self-Made Arms, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dollars That Devalue Are Unconstitutional, Christopher Guzelian

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Article demonstrates the United States dollar has been unconstitutional since at least the Civil War. Congresses and central bankers often weaken its value. In a previous article, the Author demonstrated that the largely valueless dollar causes human poverty and environmental damage. If Congress restores the dollar’s constitutionality by returning to a silver dollar coin standard of adequate value (at least 371.25 grains of fine silver per dollar), human economies and the environment will become more sustainable.

Without Limit: Why Texas's Criminal Statutes Of Limitations Violate The State Constitution's Separation Of Powers Clause, Andrew Warthen

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How Scotus's Recent Decision On The Cheerleader Case Impacts Public School Students' Due Process Rights For Their Off-Campus Conduct, Abby Efron

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lessons From United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence For Resolving Australian Interstate Groundwater Disputes, Jack Dewinter

Emory International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Insulating The Church: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Of Canada St. Mary Cathedral V. Aga And The Suppression Of Public Law In The Construction Of Religious Communities, Rabiat Akande, Faisal Bhabha

Articles & Book Chapters

In Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga, the Supreme Court of Canada undertook to grapple with the question of whether, when, and to what extent courts should get involved in the internal decisions of religious groups where there are allegations of procedural unfairness. This paper approaches Aga with an interest in the issue of state regulation of religion through law. The paper (1) reviews and assesses the Court's judgment; (2) summarizes and analyzes the 12 intervener submissions, many of which were made by religious groups likely to be affected by the Court's eventual judgment; and …

Nestlé V. Doe: A Death Knell To Corporate Human Rights Accountability?, Phillip Ayers

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court in Nestlé v. Doe held that foreign plaintiffs who claimed to be victims of overseas tortious conduct by corporate defendants had no jurisdiction to sue in federal courts using the Alien Tort Statute. This Comment looks at the history of the Alien Tort Statute, from its inspiration, long dormancy, and recent reinvigoration beginning in the 1980s. The Comment then explores the background of Nestlé and its issues with child slavery in its cocoa supply chain. From there, the Comment analyzes the Nestlé v. Doe decision, and posits an alternative outcome. Finally, this Comment looks for a new …

Walking The Line: The Politics Of Federalism And Environmental Change, Allan C. Hutchinson

Articles & Book Chapters

This short paper looks at the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act decision through a wider and more critical jurisprudential lens. In so doing, I demonstrate that the courts are no less political than legislatures in making decisions about who has the constitutional capacity to decide on how the challenges of climate change should be met. This is not so much a criticism of the Supreme Court of Canada, but an inevitable feature of constitutional law. After introducing the traditional and received explanation of the differences between political decision-making and judicial decision-making, I delve deeper into the Court's opinions and show …

Arbitrating Executive Privilege, Todd David Peterson

American University Law Review

This Article addresses the dramatic collapse in effective congressional oversight that took place during the Trump Administration. For decades, persistent congressional committees had been able to pry documents and testimony from a recalcitrant executive branch despite the absence of legally enforceable remedies. The media typically regarded executive-privilege claims as attempts to cover up executive wrongdoing, which prompted voter suspicion that damaged the President’s approval ratings. Eventually, the political cost of asserting executive privilege would become so high that the Department of Justice would work out a negotiated settlement, which allowed Congress to obtain most of the documents and testimony it …

Making South Dakota History: An Introduction To The Special Impeachment Issue, Hannah Haksgaard, Tyler Moore, Gabrielle Unruh

Faculty Publications

In September 2020, South Dakota’s Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg was driving on a rural highway when he struck and killed a pedestrian. After pleading guilty to two criminal misdemeanors, Ravnsborg was impeached, convicted, removed from state office, and barred from holding it again. This was South Dakota’s first impeachment of a constitutional officer. To chronicle this historic first, the South Dakota Law Review is publishing a special issue containing ten essays authored by those directly involved with the impeachment. This essay introduces the special issue by describing the factual and procedural background for Ravnsborg’s impeachment, providing a brief summary of …

The Trial Of Thomas More - Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons, Jonathan Van Patten

Faculty Publications

The path from Magna Carta to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights runs through the trial of Thomas More. Robert Bolt's magnificent portrayal of that trial in A Man for All Seasons provides an opportunity to learn and reflect on how a political trial can teach us about the meaning of justice. The search for universals must be rooted in the particulars. The particulars in this case will also resonate with modern audiences who seek to understand their own politics in times of crisis.

Douglass, Lincoln, And Douglas Before Dred Scott: A Few Thoughts On Freedom, Equality, And Affirmative Action, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

In 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and Frederick Douglass delivered speeches about the newly passed Kansas-Nebraska Act. That law opened the Kansas and Nebraska Territories to slavery by extending popular sovereignty, the practice of letting territorial majorities decide whether to allow slavery in a territory, to them. Given before Dred Scott v. Sandford, the infamous case in which the Supreme Court ruled that Black Americans—whether freeborn, freed, or enslaved—could not be citizens of the United States absent congressional action or constitutional amendment, the speeches are worth revisiting. They focus on whether or how slavery should be limited, reflecting …

The State Citizenship Clause, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This opening sentence contains not one, but two citizenship clauses. The first defines national citizenship. The second defines state citizenship. Although significant historical scholarship exists regarding the other provisions in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, the State Citizenship Clause has been unstudied, unapplied and, quite often, unrecognized.

The Rule Of Law Under Challenge: The Enmeshment Of National And International Trends, Gregory Shaffer, Wayne Sandholtz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The goal of the rule of law is to protect individuals from the arbitrary exercise of power. Democracy and human rights depend on the rule of law. But today the rule of law is under growing threat in the United States and around the world. Trends regarding rule-of-law protections are transnational in scope. They involve shifting norms, institutions, and practices at the local, national, and international levels. This paper assesses how challenges are taking place at the international and national levels, and how these challenges are linked. It examines the ways in which international law and institutions are important for …

Immigration Enforcement Preemption, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

The Supreme Court's 2012 decision, Arizona v. United States, turned back the most robust and brazen state regulation of immigration in recent memory, striking down several provisions of Arizona's omnibus enforcement law. Notably, the Court did not limit preemption inquiries to conflicts between the state law and congressional statutes. The Court also based its decision on the tension between the state law and Executive Branch enforcement policies. The landmark decision seemed to have settled the Court's approach to immigration enforcement federalism. Yet, a scant eight years after Arizona, in Kansas v. Garcia, the Court upheld Kansas's prosecutions of noncitizens who …