Constitutional Law Commons^™

How The U.S. Supreme Court Is Inviting The Senate To Scrap The Filibuster, Bruce Ledewitz

Newspaper Columns

Collected biweekly contributions to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site.

Privilege In Peril: U.S. V. Zubaydah And The State Secrets Privilege, Alana Mattei

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

U.S. v. Zubaydah presents an opportunity for the Court to settle the scope of the state secrets privilege and the role of the judiciary when the government invokes a claim of privilege. The state secrets privilege, invoked by the executive, gives courts the power to prevent the disclosure of information that could pose a threat to national security by excluding the particular evidence or dismissing the case. The Court will decide whether the Ninth Circuit erred by rejecting the Government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege over the depositions of former CIA contractors requested by Abu Zubaydah. The Ninth Circuit …

On Criminalizing Violent Speech, Amitai Etzioni

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

There is an increasingly high number of threats to kill, made by citizens against each other, and against public officials. These threats terrorize people, force them to take protective measures, make them reluctant to assume public office, and, when they do, make them feel as though they have to act cautiously. State and federal laws currently exist that prohibit such threats. This article examines the ways the courts have affected how these laws function. It concludes by suggesting ways these laws can be rendered more effective. Drawing on liberal communitarianism, this article seeks to offer practical recommendations for how the …

The Emergency Next Time, Noa Ben-Asher

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article offers a new conceptual framework to understand the connection between law and violence in emergencies. It is by now well-established that governments often commit state violence in times of national security crisis by implementing excessive emergency measures. The Article calls this type of legal violence “Emergency-Affirming Violence.” But Emergency Violence can also be committed through governmental non-action. This type of violence, which this Article calls, “Emergency-Denying Violence,” has manifested in the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Article offers a taxonomy to better understand the phenomenon of Emergency Violence. Using 9/11 and COVID-19 as examples, the Article proposes …

Nobody's Business: A Novel Theory Of The Anonymous First Amendment, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Law Faculty Scholarship

Namelessness is a double-edged sword. It can be a way of avoiding prejudice and focusing attention on one's ideas, but it can also be a license to defame and misinform. These points have been widely discussed. Still, the breadth of these discussions has left some of the depths unplumbed, because rarely is the question explicitly faced: what is the normative significance of namelessness itself, as opposed to its effects under different conditions? My answer is that anonymity is an evasion of responsibility for one's conduct. Persons should ordinarily be held responsible for what they do, but in some cases, where …

Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Outside The Constitution, Jacob D. Charles

Michigan Law Review

In popular and professional discourse, debate about the right to keep and bear arms most often revolves around the Second Amendment. But that narrow reference ignores a vast and expansive nonconstitutional legal regime privileging guns and their owners. This collection of nonconstitutional gun rights confers broad powers and immunities on gun owners that go far beyond those required by the Constitution, like rights to bring guns on private property against an owner’s wishes and to carry a concealed firearm in public with no training or background check. This Article catalogues this set of expansive laws and critically assesses them. Unlike …

Making A Constitutional “Son Of Sam” Law: Netflix’S Booming True Crime Business, Justin Burnworth

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Meron Wendwesen, Katrina Uyehara

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Nobody’S Business: A Novel Theory Of The Anonymous First Amendment, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Namelessness is a double-edged sword. It can be a way of avoiding prejudice and focusing attention on one’s ideas, but it can also be a license to defame and misinform. These points have been widely discussed. Still, the breadth of these discussions has left some of the depths unplumbed, because rarely is the question explicitly faced: what is the normative significance of namelessness itself, as opposed to its effects under different conditions? My answer is that anonymity is an evasion of responsibility for one’s conduct. Persons should ordinarily be held responsible for what they do, but in some cases, where …

Deepfake Reckoning: Adapting Modern First Amendment Doctrine To Protect Against The Threat Posed To Democracy, Alyssa Ivancevich

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Adree Edmo, The Eighth Amendment, And Abolition: Evaluating The Fight For Gender-Affirming Care In Prisons, Mike Greene

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

This Comment argues that the Eighth Amendment litigation strategy to secure gender confirmation surgery for incarcerated transgender people is a non-abolitionist “reformist” reform that expands the criminal punishment system that perpetuates state violence against transgender people. This Comment proposes an abolitionist framework as a transformative approach to evaluating criminal punishment system reforms and securing gender-affirming care for transgender people, incarcerated or otherwise. This Comment then proposes two abolitionist steps towards trans justice, health, and liberation.

This Comment will first provide background on gender-affirming medical care, current medical standards for assessing gender-affirming care, and the standards that courts use to evaluate …

Imposing A Daily Burden On Thousands Of Innocent Citizens: The Supreme Court Unnecessarily Limited Motorists' Fourth Amendment Rights In Kansas V. Glover, George M. Dery

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

This Article analyzes Kansas v. Glover, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an officer could stop a vehicle owned by a person having a revoked license on the assumption that the owner was currently driving the vehicle. This work examines the concerns created by Glover’s ruling. This Article asserts that, in creating its new rule enabling police to stop a motorist without first confirming his or her identity, the Court based its holding on the existence of two facts, thus effectively changing its traditional “totality of the circumstances” analysis for reasonable suspicion to a categorical rule. Further, …

Protecting Procedural Safeguards In Federal Capital Trials: United States V. Tsarnaev, Ashley Dabiere

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Commentary considers the constitutionality of (1) the trial court’s exclusion of relevant mitigating evidence during the trial’s penalty phase and (2) the imposition of a death sentence by the Supreme Court during a moratorium on federal executions. In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the jury ultimately convicted Dzhokhar of thirty counts and recommended death sentences for six of the capital offenses. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated these death sentences and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing with a different jury. First, the Court of Appeals held that the voir dire used …

Procedural Injustice: Indigenous Claims, Limitation Periods, And Laches, Kent Mcneil, Thomas Enns

All Papers

When Indigenous peoples go to court to seek justice for the historical wrongs they have endured, the Crown often tries to prevent their claims from even being heard by pleading statutes of limitations and laches. The application of these barriers raises serious constitution issues that have been taken account of by the Supreme Court only in the context of declarations of constitutional invalidity. Arguments based on the constitutional division of powers and section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 have not been addressed by the Court. As a result, limitations statutes that vary from province to province have been applied …

The Constitutional Right To Carry Firearms On Campus, Jared A. Tuck

William & Mary Law Review

Do individuals have the fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry firearms on the campus of a public university? Additionally, can a public university totally ban firearms on its campus without impeding on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment? This Note will argue that individuals have a narrow, but constitutionally guaranteed, right to carry firearms on the campus of a public university. Therefore, it is beyond the power of states and public universities to totally ban firearms from campus premises.

Recovering The Lost General Welfare Clause, David S. Schwartz

William & Mary Law Review

The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution enumerates a power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare.” A literal interpretation of this clause (“the general welfare interpretation”) would authorize Congress to legislate for any national purpose, and therefore to address all national problems— for example, the COVID-19 pandemic—in ways that would be precluded under the prevailing understanding of limited enumerated powers. But conventional doctrine rejects the general welfare interpretation and construes the General Welfare Clause to confer the so-called “Spending Power,” a power only to spend, but not to regulate, for …

Inherent Judicial Authority: A Study In Creative Ambiguity, Charles M. Yablon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Decoding Nondelegation After Gundy: What The Experience In State Courts Tells Us About What To Expect When We're Expecting, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

The nondelegation doctrine theoretically limits Congress’s ability to delegate legislative powers to the executive agencies that make up the modern administrative state. Yet, in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has, since the New Deal, shied away from enforcing any limits on congressional delegation. That may change in the near future. In Gundy v. United States, the Court narrowly upheld a delegation, and a dissent signaled deep doubts about the Court’s longstanding “intelligible principle” standard and offered a new framework to replace it. Subsequent events strongly suggest that the Court is poised to move in the direction contemplated by the dissent …

Monsanto: Creator Of Cancer Liability

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Impact Of Corporate Response To Controversial Presidential Statements Or Policies

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.