Constitutional Law Commons^™

State V. Ricker, 252 A.3d 721 (R.I. 2021), Victor M.P. Vieira

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Signed, Sealed, Delivered? Problems With The Use Of Signature Matching To Verify Mail Voter Identity

Florida A & M University Law Review

During the 2020 election, the basic struggle to balance ballot access and election integrity played out in a more public fashion than at any time in recent memory. This begs several important questions. First, how did the American election system get to this point? The legal standards governing election law have long been debated and that uncertainty unleashed a flood of litigation in 2020. Second, why use signature matching—a practice which is methodologically unsound and steadily falling out of use—at all? The use of handwritten signatures to verify identity rather than to evidence attestation is on the decline in other …

Bias And Sexism: The Racial And Gender Wage Gap Affecting Black Women

Florida A & M University Law Review

The objective of this Article is to address the racial wage gap between Black and White women and provide a solution. Part I of this Article will discuss the history of Black women and White women in the workforce. Part II will discuss the gender wage gap as it applies to Black and White women in the 21st century. Part III will discuss how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act has failed to address the gender and race issues that Black women face when it comes to work wages. Part IV will …

Resetting The Foundations: Renewing Freedom Of Expression Under Section S.2(B) Of The Charter, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

The 40^th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 2022 is a time for reckoning, and an opportunity to ready s.2’s fundamental freedoms for the future. In particular, this article offers a moment of pause to invest in s.2(b)’s guarantee of expressive freedom and its renewal. The discussion begins by addressing s.2(b)’s “fault lines”, which are embedded in the jurisprudence at both stages of the analysis – breach as well as justification. What then follows is a proposal for renewal that begins, under s.2(b), with a theory or principle of freedom and a revised …

Distrust, Negative First Amendment Theory, And The Regulation Of Lies, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the relationship between “negative” First Amendment theory—rooted in distrust of the government’s potential for regulatory abuse—and the government’s regulation of lies. Negative First Amendment theory explains why many lies are protected from governmental regulation—even when the regulation neither punishes nor chills valuable speech (as was the case, for example, of the statute at issue in United States v. Alvarez). But negative theory, like any theory, also needs limiting principles that explain when the government’s regulation is constitutionally justifiable.

In my view, we engage in the principled application of negative theory when we invoke it in (the …

What Does Effective Government Have To Do With The Constitution?, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly a million people dead and counting. More than 77 million infected, a little less than one-fifth of the total infections worldwide. The United States has had more deaths than any other country, and its COVID-19 death rate of 276 per 100,000 people is the highest among the world’s wealthiest nations. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are hospitalized and die at significantly higher rates than whites. Some bright lights exist too, one being the speedy development of vaccines and their deployment in 2021 – although there, too, both the national government and the states have sometimes stumbled. Another is legislative …

Of Presidents, Democracy, And Congress, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

Put one good thing down for the Trump presidency: It inspired Peter Shane to take up the pen to detail the fallacies of unitary executive theory and other forms of aggressive presidentialism. In Democracy’s Chief Executive, Shane provides a clear and powerful account for why unitary executive theory — the claim that the president can control the entire federal bureaucracy, which Shane notes usually includes the propositions that the president can fire any subordinate executive branch officer at will and determine how any discretion delegated to the executive branch is exercised — fails. As he explains, such propositions are …

Originalism And Personal Jurisdiction: Several Questions And A Few Answers, Lawrence B. Solum, Max Crema

Faculty Scholarship

The modern constitutional law of personal jurisdiction is largely the product of living constitutionalism. International Shoe's minimum-contacts and fairness standard was not derived from the constitutional text, and it cannot be supported by the original meaning of the Due Process of Law Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This Article explores the implications of that fact for the constitutional law of personal jurisdiction, with a focus on the federal courts.

The Article proceeds in six steps. First, it lays out the theoretical framework provided by Public Meaning Originalism, including the Fixation Thesis, the Constraint Principle, and the interpretation-construction …

A Proportionality-Based Framework For Government Regulation Of Digital Tracing Apps In Times Of Emergency, Sharon Bassan

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Times of emergency present an inherent conflict between the public interest and the preservation of individual rights. Such times require granting emergency powers to the government on behalf of the public interest and relaxing safeguards against government actions that infringe rights. The lack of theoretical framework to assess governmental decisions in times of emergency leads to a polarized and politicized discourse about potential policies, and often, to public distrust and lack of compliance.

Such a discourse was evident regarding Digital Tracing Apps (“DTAs”), which are apps installed on cellular phones to alert users that they were exposed to people who …

Frenemy Federalism, Scott Bloomberg

University of Richmond Law Review

Federalism scholars have long been fascinated by the unique relationship between the federal government and states that have legalized marijuana. And with good reason. For the past fifty years, Congress has classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), deeming the drug to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Congress’s aim in establishing Schedule I of the CSA was to “eliminate the market in Schedule I substances.” Thus, possessing, distributing, and manufacturing marijuana are federally illegal. Congress’s objective notwithstanding, over two-thirds of the states (and territories) have legalized marijuana …

Out Of Sight And Out Of Mind: Criminal Laws Disguised Moral Culpability Requirement, Andrew Ingram

University of Richmond Law Review

Last spring, the Supreme Court of the United States made a little-remarked constitutional ruling in Kahler v. Kansas. Upon casual inspection, Kahler looks like a doctrinal dead-end. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to recognize a due process right for mentally ill defendants to raise the M’Naghten right-and-wrong test of insanity, and the Court said, “No.” The petitioner’s failure notwithstanding, Kahler is not a barren vine. On the contrary, it is heavy-laden with new doctrinal insights for criminal law scholars.

The case deserves a thorough look—not for what it can teach us about constitutional contentions that the Court has …

Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health And The Post-Roe Landscape, Yvonne F. Lindgren

Faculty Works

This Article examines some of the important takeaways of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision and the likely reverberations it will have on other areas of law and reproductive healthcare more broadly. The Article proceeds in three parts. Part I examines the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions to consider what they reveal about the new standard of review for abortion, the shift in power among the members of the Court itself, as well as what the opinion signals might come next. Part II explores the future of abortion in a post-Roe landscape as the abortion rights movement moves from …

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future Of Unwanted Pregnancy, Julie Suk

Faculty Scholarship

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, the survival of abortion access in America will depend on new legal paths. In the same moment that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has constrained access to abortion in the United States, other constitutional democracies have moved in the opposite direction, expanding access to safe, legal, and free abortions. They have done so without reasoning from Roe’s vision of the private zone of unwanted pregnancy. The development of abortion law outside the United States provides critical insights that can inform future efforts to vindicate the constitutional rights of women facing unwanted pregnancies. …

America’S Racial Stain: The Taint Argument And The Limits Of Constitutional Law And Rhetoric, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

How should reformers respond to America’s racial stain? The problem is more complex than many imagine. Political activists usually attempt to promote change by taking advantage of a gap between current reality and a touchstone they use to measure the normative desirability of that reality. But what if the touchstone itself is infected by the reality that activists want to change?

Questions raised by this problem do not lend themselves to definitive answers, and this essay does not offer them. Instead, I suggest a variety of responses that attempt to grapple with the difficulty. I also offer tentative assessments of …

House Rules: Congress And The Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in Trump v. Mazars establishing four factors for determining the validity of congressional subpoenas for a sitting president’s personal papers. In an unanticipated move, Chief Justice John Roberts added that recipients of congressional subpoenas have “long been understood” to retain not only constitutional privileges, but common law privileges developed by judges, including the attorney-client privilege. This was particularly surprising since Trump was not relying on the attorney-client privilege and the Court had never treated this common law privilege as overriding Congress’s Article I power to set its own procedures for conducting …

Malicious Prosecution As Undue Process: A Fourteenth Amendment Theory Of Malicious Prosecution, Timothy Tymkovich, Hayley Stillwell

Faculty Articles

Section 1983 is not itself a source of constitutional rights, but is instead merely a vehicle to vindicate constitutional rights that independently exist. But since the Supreme Court advised in dictum that actions pursuant to § 1983 should be read against the background of tort liability, § 1983 actions based on malicious prosecution have sparked disagreement over where, if anywhere, this cause of action fits within the Constitution. Most recently, the Supreme Court determined that malicious prosecution finds its constitutional home in the Fourth Amendment, so § 1983 claims require a showing of both a Fourth Amendment violation and the …

The Electoral Count Mess: The Electoral Count Act Of 1887 Is Unconstitutional, And Other Fun Facts (Plus A Few Random Academic Speculations) About Counting Electoral Votes, Jack Beermann, Gary Lawson

FIU Law Review

In this essay, and in light of the controversy that arose in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, we explain the constitutional process for counting electoral votes. In short, every four years, the Twelfth Amendment requires the President of the Senate (usually the Vice President of the United States) to open certificates provided by state presidential electors and count the votes contained therein. The Constitution allows no role for Congress in this process, and thus, the provisions of the Electoral Count Act purporting to grant Congress the power, by concurrent resolution, to reject a state’s electoral votes, is unconstitutional. …

Report To The Editor In Chief Of The Fiu Law Review, Thomas E. Baker

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recognizing A Fundamental Right To A Clean Environment: Why The Juliana Court Got It Wrong And How To Address The Issue Moving Forward, Robert Kemper

FIU Law Review

As the existential threat of climate change becomes increasingly prevalent, U.S. plaintiffs, lawyers, and activists have begun seeking redress in federal courts arguing for recognition of a constitutional right to a clean environment. Recently, in Juliana v. United States, the Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized the grave threat of climate change for the health, well-being, and security of the American people and the nation as a whole. Additionally, the court found that the U.S. government has contributed to climate change through both inaction and policy decisions that promote the use of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a constitutional …