Constitutional Law Commons^™

Fundamental Rights And Fundamental Relationships: The Family In Comparative Constitutional Law, Paolo G. Carozza

Book Chapters

The chapter is part of the Proceedings of the 2022 Plenary Session
The Family as a Relational Good: the Challenge of Love
27-29 April 2022
Pierpaolo Donati (editor)
Acta 23, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 2023

Covid-19, Churches, And Culture Wars, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause often requires courts to balance competing interests of the highest order. On the one hand, the Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion as a fundamental right. On the other hand, the government sometimes has compelling reasons for limiting free exercise, especially in situations involving dangers to health and safety. The shutdown and social distancing orders issued during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic not only restricted free exercise but also limited what many people consider to be the core of that exercise: religious worship. But the orders did so in order to …

The Evolving Apa And The Originalist Challenge, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article, written for a symposium marking the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), discusses the manifold ways in which courts have creatively interpreted the APA’s provisions on rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review. Many of these interpretations seem to be barely, if at all, consistent with the intentions of the Act’s drafters and with standard principles of statutory construction. They can, however, be defended as pragmatic judicial efforts to keep up with the evolving needs of the regulatory state, especially in light of Congress’s persistent failure to take charge of updating the Act on its own. At this …

Misinformation About Marijuana: Commercialization, Consolidation, And The New First Amendment, David Angelatos

American University Law Review

From “Reefer Madness” to “This Is Your Brain on Drugs,” Americans have lived through decades of anti-cannabis propaganda. Legalization is poised to turn this information environment on its head, unleashing a torrent of corporate-funded, pro-cannabis misinformation that regulators cannot prevent or dispel. This appears to be a problem caused by the Supreme Court’s creation and expansion over the past fifty years of First Amendment protections for corporate and commercial speech. Although these doctrines contribute substantially to the problem, this Article shows how it originates in lax antitrust policy rather than expansive First Amendment jurisprudence.

If Congress follows current legalization trends …

A Theory Of Constitutional Norms, Ashraf Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

The political convulsions of the past decade have fueled acute interest in constitutional norms or “conventions.” Despite intense scholarly attention, existing accounts are incomplete and do not answer at least one or more of three major questions: (1) What must all constitutional norms do? (2) What makes them conventional? (3) And why are they constitutional?

This Article advances an original theory of constitutional norms that answers these questions. First, it defines them and explains their general character: they are normative, contingent, and arbitrary practices that implement constitutional text and principle. Most scholars have foregone examining how norms are conventional or …

Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib

American University Law Review

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) rest on an unacceptably shaky constitutional foundation. Unlike other regimes of federal rulemaking—for Civil Procedure, for Criminal Procedure, and for Appellate Procedure—the FRE rulemaking process contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act is both formally and functionally defective because Congress enacted the FRE as a statute first but purports to permit the Supreme Court to revise, repeal, and amend those laws over time, operating as a kind of supercharged administrative agency with the authority to countermand congressional statutes. Formally, this system violates the constitutionally-delineated separation of powers as announced in Chadha, Clinton, and the non-delegation …

"Youth Matters": Why Demanding The Same Heightened Level Of Mitigation In Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Proceedings As Is Required In Capital Sentencing Proceedings Is The Only Constitutional Option, Margaret Helein

American University Law Review

Donnell Wilson was only sixteen years old when he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (JLWOP). Wilson appealed his life sentence, claiming that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence pertaining to his youth and background when he was facing the possibility of a life sentence. While the state appellate court agreed, the state supreme court did not. The court in Wilson’s case concluded that the standards for presentation of mitigation evidence at sentencing as laid out by the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function …

First Amendment Challenges To State Vaccine Mandats: Why The U.S. Supreme Court Should Hold That The Free Exercise Clause Does Not Require Religious Exemptions, Donna M. Gitter

American University Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has never issued a judicial opinion on the merits declaring that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause permits states to mandate vaccinations without offering religious exemptions. However, in two recent cases, the Court in brief orders declined applications for emergency relief to block state vaccine mandates, and the petitioners have vowed to continue to pursue these cases.

This Article explores how the seemingly sudden onset of the coronavirus pandemic, coupled with its protracted duration, has occasioned both emergency and enduring state regulation of religious behavior in a way that exposes deep divides in our society’s views …

The Constitutional Costs Of School Policing, Maryam Ahranjani, Natalie Saing

American University Law Review

Responding to fears of violence and liability on K-12 campuses, local school boards and superintendents have made on-site or embedded school police omnipresent in American public schools. Yet, very little attention is paid to the many costs associated with their presence. When situating law enforcement’s presence squarely in the racist history of policing and school policing, the juxtaposition with the civic purpose of public education reveals significant constitutional costs. This Article builds on existing scholarship by bringing attention to the conflict between the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the dimensions of embedded school police. Ultimately, schools must …

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

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The “Liberty Of Silence” Challenging State Legislation That Strips Municipalities Of Authority To Remove Confederate Monuments, Roger C. Hartley

FIU Law Review

There are roughly 700 Confederate monuments still standing in courthouse lawns, parks, and downtown squares in virtually every city, town, and village throughout the “Old South.” Most of these Confederate monuments are located in states that have enacted legislation that bans the removal of Confederate monuments. Such legislative bans are in effect in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Legislation that bans removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces poses a racial justice issue for millions of residents in these states because it forces political majorities in Southern communities (many constituting majority-minority communities) to host a …

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. …

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 …

Disparate Discrimination, Leah M. Litman

Michigan Law Review

This Article explains and analyzes a recent trend in the Supreme Court’s cases regarding unintentional discrimination, where the argument is that a law has the effect of producing a disadvantage on members of a particular group. In religious discrimination cases, the Court has held that a law is presumptively unconstitutional if the law results in a comparable secular activity being treated more favorably than religious activity. Yet in racial discrimination cases, the Court has said the mere fact that a law more severely disadvantages racial minorities as a group does not suffice to establish unlawful discrimination.

The two tracks for …

In Celebration Of Dissents (And Lengthy Textbooks): How Digital Became Different For The Fourth Amendment And Why It Is Time For A Real Warrant Default, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The last decade has brought tremendous change to the Fourth Amendment, finally resulting in a ‘digital is different’ norm. We stand at an inflection point between a monolithic, analog past and a murky future of yet-unarticulated constitutional digital policing rules. It is a good time, then, to reflect upon how we came to be here and where we ought to go. This Essay first looks back to a monumental, majestic dissent: that of Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1928 decision of Olmstead v. United States. Every American, and especially every law student, ought to know that opinion, and judges …

The Jury Veto, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

While the American civic religion is to be distrustful of government, feelings of discontent regarding our systems of criminal investigation and adjudication feel historic. And while those systems are capable of great carnage en route, the endgame is, ultimately, criminal punishment. Yet before punishment can be imposed, every prosecution—and therefore every defendant—is meant to encounter a potential “circuit breaker”: the jury. I propose that we re-inject this democratic voice into our criminal adjudications, but through an entirely novel structure: the defendant (and perhaps the prosecutor) would have the choice of invoking a jury empowered to ‘veto’ any judicial sentence. By …

The Dilemma Of Liberal Pluralism, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Supporters of reproductive rights and of queer rights may sometimes live in harmony with advocates for religious exemptions. But sometimes these goals conflict. This Article explores this tension as a matter of liberal democratic theory and U.S. constitutional law, offering a case for seeing a robust pluralism as contained within a proper understanding of the liberal democratic state. The state’s claimed authority may be the starting point, but just as the modern state was born in decentralized religious toleration, so should the modern state accommodate religious and other views of the good that compete with the state’s own views. The …

Removal Of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, And The Limits Of Unitary Originalism, Jed H. Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's recent decisions that the President has an unconditional or indefeasible removal power rely on textual and historical assumptions and a “removal of context.” This article focuses on the “executive power” part of the Vesting Clause and particularly the unitary theorists' misuse of Blackstone. Unitary executive theorists overlook the problems of relying on England’s limited monarchy: the era’s rise of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown and its power to eliminate or regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. Unitary theorists provide no evidence that executive removal was ever identified as a “royal prerogative" or a default royal power. The …

A World Without Roe: The Constitutional Future Of Unwanted Pregnancy, Julie C. 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. …

Federalism, Private Rights, And Article Iii Adjudication, John M. Golden, Thomas H. Lee

Faculty Scholarship

This Article sheds new light on the private rights/public rights distinction used by the Supreme Court to assess the extent to which the United States Constitution permits adjudication by a non-Article III federal tribunal. State courts have traditionally been the primary deciders of lawsuits over private rights—historically defined as suits regarding “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined.” If Congress could limitlessly assign adjudication of private rights cases to federal officials lacking the life tenure and salary protections of Article III judges, the political branches of the federal government would enjoy vastly expanded authority to …