Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants,
2020
University of Michigan Law School
Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants, Keagan Potts
Michigan Law Review
The writ of habeas corpus presents the last chance for innocent defendants to obtain relief from invalid convictions and sentences. The writ constitutes a limited exception to the finality of judgments. Given the role finality plays in conserving judicial resources and deterring criminal conduct, exceptions created by habeas must be principally circumscribed. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States, the federal courts of appeals have attempted to develop a test that protects the writ from abuse by Johnson claimants.
This Note first contributes a new understanding of the …
Force-Feeding Pretrial Detainees: A Constitutional Violation,
2020
William & Mary Law School
Force-Feeding Pretrial Detainees: A Constitutional Violation, Bryn L. Clegg
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Framing The Second Amendment: Gun Rights, Civil Rights And Civil Liberties,
2020
William & Mary Law School
Framing The Second Amendment: Gun Rights, Civil Rights And Civil Liberties, Timothy Zick
Faculty Publications
Gun rights proponents and gun control advocates have devoted significant energy to framing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In constitutional discourse, advocates and commentators have referred to the Second Amendment as a "collective, ""civic republican," "individual," and 'fundamental" right. Gun rights advocates have defended the right to keep and bear arms on "law and order" grounds, while gun control proponents have urged regulation based on "public health, " "human rights, " and other concerns. These frames and concepts have significantly influenced how the right to keep and bear arms has been debated, interpreted, and enforced. This Article …
Free Speech, Rational Deliberation, And Some Truths About Lies,
2020
William & Mary Law School
Free Speech, Rational Deliberation, And Some Truths About Lies, Alan K. Chen
William & Mary Law Review
Could “fake news” have First Amendment value? This claim would seem to be almost frivolous given the potential for fake news to undermine two core functions of the freedom of speech—promoting democracy and facilitating the search for “truth,” as well as the corollary that to be valuable, speech must promote rational deliberation. Some would therefore claim that fake news should be classified as “no value” speech falling outside of the First Amendment’s reach. This Article argues somewhat counterintuitively that fake news has value because speech doctrine should not be focused exclusively on the promotion of rational deliberation, but should also …
Brief Of Law Professors Richard Aynes Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Courtney V. Danner, No. 20-361 (U.S. Filed 2020).,
2020
The University of Akron School of Law
Brief Of Law Professors Richard Aynes Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Courtney V. Danner, No. 20-361 (U.S. Filed 2020)., Richard Aynes, James Ely, Richard Epstein, Christopher Green, Michael Lawrence, Rebecca Zietlow
Con Law Center Amicus Briefs
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment recognized that all United States citizens have fundamental rights derived from their national citizenship. It provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. While the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), may have eroded the scope of the rights the Privileges or Immunities Clause encompassed, the decision undoubtedly expressed the wellknown prevailing view that certain privileges or immunities were protected by the Clause, including the one at issue …
The Executive Branch Anticanon,
2020
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
The Executive Branch Anticanon, Deborah Pearlstein
Articles
Donald Trump’s presidency has given rise to a raft of concerns not just about the wisdom of particular policy decisions but also about the prospect that executive actions might have troubling longer term “precedential” effects. While critics tend to leave undefined what “precedent” in this context means, existing constitutional structures provide multiple mechanisms by which presidential practice can influence future executive branch conduct: judicial actors rely on practice as gloss on constitutional meaning, executive branch officials rely on past practice in guiding institutional norms of behavior, and elected officials outside the executive branch and the people themselves draw on past …
The Due Process Of Bail,
2020
Texas A&M University School of Law
The Due Process Of Bail, Jenny E. Carroll
Faculty Scholarship
The Due Process Clause is a central tenet of criminal law’s constitutional canon. Yet defining precisely what process is due a defendant is a deceptively complex proposition. Nowhere is this more true than in the context of pretrial detention, where the Court has relied on due process safeguards to preserve the constitutionality of bail provisions. This Essay considers the lay of the bail due process landscape through the lens of the district court’s opinion in O’Donnell v. Harris County and the often convoluted historical description of pretrial due process. Even as the O’Donnell court failed to characterize pretrial process as …
Good Governance Paper No. 17: How To Use The Bureaucracy To Govern Well,
2020
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Good Governance Paper No. 17: How To Use The Bureaucracy To Govern Well, Rebecca Ingber
Online Publications
In every new presidential administration, the President and political appointees come to power with strong views about the policies they wish to enact and the substantive breaks they wish to make with the administration that came before – including views on where the U.S. government should change legal positions on key issues. But views on substantive positions alone are not enough preparation for a new administration seeking to impose its values on the government. And policy preparation on substance is especially insufficient when an incoming administration’s values include norms of process – such as adherence to the rule of law, …
The Transition Is Already Happening (And It’S Going Fine So Far),
2020
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
The Transition Is Already Happening (And It’S Going Fine So Far), Michael Herz, Katherine A. Shaw
Online Publications
Even if Trump were resolved to thwart a smooth transition, much of the process lies entirely outside his control.
Sometime in early to mid-November, if October polling holds and the infrastructure of our democracy basically functions, Joe Biden is likely to be declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election. At that point, he will have just more than two months to prepare to take over the leadership of a country still in the grips of a once-in-a-century pandemic, with more than 12 million Americans unemployed, tens of millions of children out of school, and COVID-19 deaths barreling toward 300,000. …
October 27, 2020: Will The Supreme Court Survive This Treachery?,
2020
Duquesne University
October 27, 2020: Will The Supreme Court Survive This Treachery?, Bruce Ledewitz
Hallowed Secularism
Blog post, “Will the Supreme Court Survive This Treachery?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.
Are Judges Policymakers? A Constitutional Rebuff To Judicial Reform,
2020
University of Cincinnati College of Law
Are Judges Policymakers? A Constitutional Rebuff To Judicial Reform, Zach Hullinger
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Will Cyber Autonomy Undercut Democratic Accountability?,
2020
University of Virginia
Will Cyber Autonomy Undercut Democratic Accountability?, Ashley Deeks
International Law Studies
In recent years, legislative bodies such as the U.S. Congress and the U.K. Parliament have struggled to maintain a role for themselves in government decisions to conduct military operations against foreign adversaries. Some of these challenges arise from constitutional structures, but they are also due to the changing nature of conflict: a shift away from large-scale kinetic operations and toward smaller-scale operations—including cyber operations—that are less visible and that do not require robust legislative support. These modern operations leave legislatures to engage in ex post and sometimes ineffective efforts to hold their executive branches accountable for international uses of force …
Government Tweets, Government Speech: The First Amendment Implications Of Government Trolling,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
Government Tweets, Government Speech: The First Amendment Implications Of Government Trolling, Douglas B. Mckechnie
Seattle University Law Review
President Trump has been accused of using @realDonaldTrump to troll his critics. While the President’s tweets are often attributed to his personal views, they raise important Constitutional questions. This article posits that @realDonaldTrump tweets are government speech and, where they troll government critics, they violate the Free Speech Clause. I begin the article with an exploration of President Trump’s use of @realDonaldTrump from his time as a private citizen to President. The article then chronicles the development of the government speech doctrine and the Supreme Court’s factors that differentiate private speech from government speech. I argue that, based on the …
The Weaponization Of The “Alien Harboring” Statute In A New-Era Of Racial Animus Towards Immigrants,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
The Weaponization Of The “Alien Harboring” Statute In A New-Era Of Racial Animus Towards Immigrants, Hannah Hamley
Seattle University Law Review
Federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), commonly referred to as the “Alien Harboring” statute, was passed sixty-eight years ago and has been used as a weapon against immigrants and their allies. Spanning back decades, numerous scholars, alarmed by the dangerous use of the statute, have written about its muddled congressional intent and the unclear definition of “harboring.” These issues continue to be relevant and are foundational concerns with the enforcement of the harboring statute. However, in the era of President Donald J. Trump, we are faced with a new danger. We are confronted with an Administration that is ferociously anti-immigrant …
Court-Packing In 2021: Pathways To Democratic Legitimacy,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
Court-Packing In 2021: Pathways To Democratic Legitimacy, Richard Mailey
Seattle University Law Review
This Article asks whether the openness to court-packing expressed by a number of Democratic presidential candidates (e.g., Pete Buttigieg) is democratically defensible. More specifically, it asks whether it is possible to break the apparent link between demagogic populism and court-packing, and it examines three possible ways of doing this via Bruce Ackerman’s dualist theory of constitutional moments—a theory which offers the possibility of legitimating problematic pathways to constitutional change on democratic but non-populist grounds. In the end, the Article suggests that an Ackermanian perspective offers just one, extremely limited pathway to democratically legitimate court-packing in 2021: namely, where a Democratic …
“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines
Seattle University Law Review
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.
“Don’T Move”: Redefining “Physical Restraint” In Light Of A United States Circuit Court Divide,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
“Don’T Move”: Redefining “Physical Restraint” In Light Of A United States Circuit Court Divide, Julia Knitter
Seattle University Law Review
To reduce sentencing disparities and clarify the application of the sentencing guide to the physical restraint enhancement for a robbery conviction, this Comment argues that the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) must amend the USSC Guidelines Manual to provide federal courts with a clearer and more concise definition of physical restraint. Additionally, although there are many state-level sentencing systems throughout the United States, this Comment only focuses on the federal sentencing guidelines for robbery because of the disparate way in which these guidelines are applied from circuit to circuit.
Enough Is As Good As A Feast,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin
Seattle University Law Review
Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.
Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment,
2020
Seattle University School of Law
Preservation Requests And The Fourth Amendment, Armin Tadayon
Seattle University Law Review
Every day, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, ridesharing companies, and numerous other service providers copy users’ account information upon receiving a preservation request from the government. These requests are authorized under a relatively obscure subsection of the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The SCA is the federal statute that governs the disclosure of communications stored by third party service providers. Section 2703(f) of this statute authorizes the use of “f” or “preservation” letters, which enable the government to request that a service provider “take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession” while investigators seek valid legal process. …
