Constitutional Law Commons^™

Keeping It Complex With Philip Hunton, John Locke, And The United States Federal Judiciary: On The Merit Of Murkiness In Separation Of Powers Jurisprudence, Michelle M. Kundmueller

Political Science & Geography Faculty Publications

This article draws on the resources of a little-known political theorist, Philip Hunton, to explain the function of “murky” jurisprudence in the maintenance of separation of powers over time. In the era immediately before the drafting of the United States Constitution, separation of powers was a touted remedy to tyranny. But if government is thus moderated, a critical question arises: who will judge the precise contours of each institution’s powers? This article addresses this longstanding question by comparing the solutions offered by Philip Hunton, John Locke, and the United States judiciary. I conclude that the judiciary’s decried inability to clarify …

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 …

Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Why The U.S. Founders' Conceptions Of Human Agency Matter Today: The Example Of Senate Malapportionment, Susan D. Carle

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article links the U.S. founders’ ideas about “human agency”—i.e., their understandings of the link between the individual and the social and political structure—with how they designed the Constitution and, in particular, how they designed the U.S. Senate as a non-majoritarian institution. I mine primary sources to show that although the founders struggled with many dis- agreements in drafting the Constitution, they shared an amalgam of historically received ideas about human agency derived from both liberal and civic republican traditions. I identify five such ideas and then parse which of them continue to pertain today. I argue that although contemporary …

Founding The Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

There are many different approaches to civic literacy, reflecting the dedication of so many individuals and organizations and their creativity committed to the task. For the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, the approach has been to have law students educate young people about their rights through Supreme Court cases and moot court arguments.

Reclaiming Establishment: Identity And The 'Religious Equality Problem', Faraz Sanei

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Since at least 2017, the Court has implicitly recognized a right of equal access to generally available public benefits based on the beneficiary’s religious identity or status. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court went a step further and, for the first time, concluded that the “statususe distinction lacks a meaningful application” in both theory and practice. It then held that restrictions on the use of public benefits for sacral purposes amount to religious discrimination because they impose substantial burdens on free exercise rights. Carson’s holding, and the rationale underlying it, contravene settled case law and effectively gut the Establishment …

The False Allure Of The Anti-Accumulation Principle, Kevin Stack, Michael Herz

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Today the executive branch is generally seen as the most dangerous branch. Many worry that the executive branch now defies or subsumes the separation of powers. In response, several Supreme Court Justices and prominent scholars assert that the very separation-of-powers principles that determine the structure of the federal government as a whole apply with full force within the executive branch. In particular, they argue that constitutional law prohibits the accumulation of more than one type of power-—legislative, executive, and judicial—-in the same executive official or government entity. We refer to this as the anti-accumulation principle. The consequences of this principle, …

"Second-Class" Rhetoric, Ideology, And Doctrinal Change, Eric M. Ruben, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A common refrain in current constitutional discourse is that lawmakers and judges are systematically disfavoring certain rights. This allegation has been made about the rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, but it is most prominent in debates about the right to keep and bear arms. Such “second-class” treatment, the argument goes, signals that the Supreme Court must intervene aggressively to police the disrespected rights. Past empirical work casts doubt on the descriptive claim that judges and policymakers are disrespecting the Second Amendment, but that simply highlights how little we know about how the second-class argument functions as …

Zombie Laws, Howard M. Wasserman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

A judicial declaration of constitutional invalidity does not erase a challenged law. Such a law is “dead” in that enforcement efforts will not succeed in court, where judicial precedent binds and dictates the outcome in future litigation. But such a law is “alive” in that it remains on the books and may be enforced by a departmentalist executive acting on an independent constitutional judgment. Judge Gregg Costa has labeled these statutory remainders “zombie laws.”

This Article describes several principles that define constitutional litigation, how those principles produce zombie laws, and the scope and nature of zombie laws. It then describes …

Constellating History: An Investigation Into The Supreme Court’S Treatment Of Congressional Consent Under The Compact Clause, Rohan Koosha Hiatt

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Supreme Court cases of U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission and Wharton v. Wise, decided over 80 years apart, set forth different narratives for the evolution of the nonliteral test for consent under the Compact Clause. This Note investigates these competing historical claims in order to reconcile incompatible understandings of how the test evolved, ultimately identifying a more complex origin of the test than the one articulated in U.S. Steel. In so doing, this Note sheds light on the ability of the Court to not only bring history to light, but also to obscure it.

Fixing America's Broken Democracy, Erwin Chemerinsky

Lewis & Clark Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Appointment The Means Of Presidential Removal Of Officers Of The United States, David M. Driesen

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article examines the relationship between appointment and removal of officers of the United States, focusing on the administrations of Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump. These administrations’ use of appointment and removal underlines the potential tension between political removal accomplished without Senate approval of a successor and the Constitution’s goal of securing the rule of law.

To remedy these issues, this Article proposes that Congress pass a statute forbidding presidential removal of an agency head (and other Senate-approved appointees) until the President nominates a qualified successor or until the Senate confirms a successor. Integrating Appointments Clause …

Requiring Majority Winners For Congressional Elections: Harnessing Federalism To Combat Extremism, Edward B. Foley

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Congress should enact a law requiring a candidate for a seat in Congress to receive a majority of votes in order to win the election. Congress should let states determine what particular procedure to use to determine whether a candidate wins a majority, as there are significantly different methods of identifying a majority winner. While this simple piece of legislation might seem inconsequential—many Americans assume, erroneously, that elections already require majority winners—it in fact would cause states to undertake a form of experimentation in the details of electoral system design that would have the effect of counteracting the threat that …

Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the numerous election law cases that the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts decided in the lead up to the 2020 election. The picture is bleak. Instead of protecting the constitutional right to vote, the Supreme Court and lower federal appeals courts unduly deferred to state legislatures in how to run the election, with little concern for the difficulties voters faced during a pandemic. If the courts do not alter their jurisprudence, then the only solution may be robust federal legislation or a constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to vote …

Presidential Election Reform: A Current National Imperative, Mark Bohnerst, Reed Hundt, Kate E. Morrow, Aviam Soifer

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article suggests several important practical reforms in how we choose our President and Vice President. It first identifies problems with the Electoral College system, and proposes solutions that would not require a constitutional amendment. The Article also discusses how the long-forgotten provisions of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment authorize reduction in the electoral votes from states whose legislatures deprive or abridge the right of the people to vote for their presidential electors. By exploring the history and language of Section 2, this Article demonstrates that it was ratified with the specific purpose of preventing state legislatures from usurping …

Immigration Detention As A Violation Of Transgender Detainees' Substantive Due Process Rights, Emily Torstveit Ngara

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Noncitizens in immigration proceedings are often subject to civil detention pending a final decision on their case. Transgender individuals in immigration detention are at high risk for physical and sexual assault, cruel and degrading treatment, denial of necessary medical care, and protective isolation. The well-documented harms caused to transgender individuals in detention violate Fifth Amendment substantive due process. This Article documents the harms of immigration detention specific to the transgender community, reviews substantive due process jurisprudence in the civil detention context, and analogizes Eighth Amendment claims for transgender prisoners to substantive due process claims. Immigration detention is predicated on the …

Crime And Excessive Punishment: How The Courts Accelerate The Race To Recidivism, Rachel Kunjummen Paulose

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Congress wants citizens to believe that it is very tough on crime. In federal statutes, as well as in the United States Sentencing Guidelines, authorities have imposed heightened penalties on criminals whose history demonstrates violence, a propensity for aggravated conduct involving guns and drugs, or a repetitive disregard for the law.

Who is an armed career criminal? What is an aggravated felony? Who is a career offender? Congress cannot be bothered with the details, but it assures an anxious public that it will lock up all these bad guys and throw away the key. Words matter in the law. By …

Domsetic Terrorism: Not Actually A Crime, But Desperately In Need Of A Federal Response, Rebecca K. Tucker

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Since the founding of the United States, the U.S. Government has dealt with national security threats, both external and internal. While there are federal laws in place to protect the nation against external actors, these instruments cannot be turned directly inward to address the rising threat of domestic terrorism. This Comment explains the issues with that approach and concludes by proposing specific solutions, focusing on the need for a coordinated response from the agencies and departments tasked with the investigation, intelligence, and prevention of domestic violent extremism and terrorism.

Countering The Criminal Nature Of Immigration Enforcement: A Proposal To Expand Constitutional Safeguards, Madeleine Powers

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Justice Accused At 45: Reflections On Robert Cover’S Masterwork, Sanford Levinson, Mark A. Graber

Touro Law Review

We raise some questions about the timeliness and timelessness of certain themes in Robert Cover’s masterwork, Justice Accused, originally published in 1975. Our concern is how the issues Cover raised when exploring the ways antislavery justices decided fugitive slave cases in the antebellum United States, played out in the United States first when Cover was writing nearly fifty years ago, and then play out in the United States today. The moral-formal dilemma faced by the justices that Cover studied when adjudicating cases arising from the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 was whether judicial decision-makers should interpret the …