Constitutional Law Commons^™

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 …

Was Justice Ginsburg Roe-Ght?: Reimagining U.S. Abortion Discourse In The Wake Of Argentina's Marea Verde, Kim D. Ricardo

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Informed Jury, Daniel Epps, William Ortman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The right to a criminal jury trial is a constitutional disappointment. Cases almost never make it to a jury because of plea bargaining. In the few cases that do, the jury is relegated to a narrow factfinding role that denies it normative voice or the ability to serve as a meaningful check on excessive punishment.

One simple change could situate the jury where it belongs, at the center of the criminal process. The most important thing juries do in criminal cases is authorize state punishment. But today, when a jury returns a guilty verdict, it authorizes punishment without any idea …

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 …

The Lawfulness Of The Fifteenth Amendment, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

One of the most provocative debates in constitutional theory concerns the lawfulness of the Reconstruction Amendments’ adoptions. Scholars have contested whether Article V permits amendments proposed by Congresses that excluded the Southern States and questioned whether those States’ ratifications were obtained through unlawful coercion. Scholars have also teased out differences in how States were counted for purposes of ratifying the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. This debate has focused exclusively on the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, dismissing the Fifteenth Amendment as a mere sequel.

As this Essay demonstrates, the unique issues raised by the Fifteenth Amendment’s ratification adds important nuance to …

Deregulated Redistricting, Travis Crum

Scholarship@WashULaw

From the civil rights movement through the Obama administration, each successive redistricting cycle involved ever-greater regulation of the mapmaking process. But in the past decade, the Supreme Court has re-written the ground rules for redistricting. For the first time in fifty years, Southern States will redistrict free of the preclearance process that long protected minorities from having their political power diminished. Political parties can now openly engage in egregious partisan gerrymandering.

The Court has withdrawn from the political thicket on every front except race. In so doing, the Court has engaged in decision-making that is both activist and restrained, but …

Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale, Kyle Rozema, Adam Chilton, Justin Driver, Jonathan S. Masur

Scholarship@WashULaw

Ever since Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke made diversity in higher education a constitutionally acceptable rationale for affirmative action programs, the diversity rationale has received vehement criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Critics on the right argue that diversity efforts lead to “less meritorious” applicants being selected. Critics on the left charge that diversity is mere “subterfuge.” On the diversity rationale’s legitimacy, then, there is precious little diversity of thought. In particular, prominent scholars and jurists have cast doubt on the diversity rationale’s empirical foundations, claiming that it rests on an implausible …

Defending The Defenders: Why Bureaucratic Independence Is A Necessary Supplement To Judicial Defense Of Democracy The Specter Of Dictatorship: Judicial Enabling Of Presidential Power, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

A familiar story is being observed in countries ranging from Brazil to Australia, the United States, and Poland, as elected executives deploy a populist threat narrative to politicize the rule of law and entrench themselves in power. Out of the academy, a growing literature on democratic “backsliding” or “decline” proposes a menu of “guardrails” for shoring up democracy from gradual collapse. Broadly, these guardrails fall under two headings: I call one judicial, the other bureaucratic. The former looks to the power of judicial review, under which courts may invalidate enactments that threaten, not just the Constitution, but the very democratic …

Revisiting America's Guardrails The Constitution And Democratic Erosion Symposium, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

A familiar story is being observed in countries ranging from Brazil to Australia, the United States, and Poland as elected executives deploy a populist threat narrative to politicize the rule of law and entrench themselves in power. Out of the academy, a growing literature proposes a menu of “guardrails” for shoring up democracy from backsliding or decline. Some see guardrails in society and culture, calling for rebuilding civic norms of tolerance. Others call for stricter rules in administering elections, to prevent undue influence. Others call for greater judicial intervention, tasking courts with striking down enactments that threaten the constitution or …

Unresponsive Judicial Review: How Formalism On The American Bench Thwarts Democracy Defense, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

At a time when worldwide democratic decline is of grave concern, Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review is vital and timely. Dixon sketches an attractive vision of courts’ highest role as one of democracy-defense: protecting free and fair elections, ensuring rights and freedoms remain in vigor, muscularly enforcing checks and balances. Granted, argues Dixon, “responsive” courts must exercise their powers in a context-sensitive way; courts in fraught environments cannot get away with quite as much entrepreneurial judging as their counterparts, and they should tailor a remedy to ensure, one, its own feasibility, and two, the court’s survival. The pragmatic character of …

No New Tax Cuts? Examining The Rescue Plan's New State Tax Limits, Conor Clarke, Edward Fox

Scholarship@WashULaw

In this article, Clarke and Fox examine the American Rescue Plan Act’s restrictions on state tax cuts, arguing that the restrictions are a variation on more familiar maintenance-of-effort provisions. These provisions are common, and are designed to help ensure that federal grants supplement rather than supplant state spending by requiring the state to maintain its level of spending on a program. Clarke and Fox conclude that the Rescue Plan’s requirements create similar incentives, and argue that the similarity makes it more likely that the act’s tax provisions are consonant with the Constitution’s spending clause.

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 …