Constitutional Law Commons^™

Gabber V. Attorney General, Uzi Vogelman, Yael Willner, Daphne Barak-Erez

Translated Opinions

This was an appeal of a judgment of the District Court that declared the Appellant extraditable to the United States. An indictment was filed against the Appellant with the Federal District Court of the State of California for producing child pornography, coercing and soliciting a minor to perform sexual acts, extortion, and distributing child pornography. The dispute in the proceeding revolved around a number of questions: whether the “center of gravity” of the offenses attributed to the Appellant is in the United States or in Israel, the implications of Basic Law: The Nation State, whether there was a delay in …

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act: Pragmatic Reforms In Support Of Research, Tania M. Bubela, Erika Kleiderman, Zubin Master, Ubaka Ogbogu, Vardit Ravitsky, Amy Zarzeczny, Bartha Maria Knoppers

Office of the Provost

Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act is long overdue for Parliamentary review. We argue that the current regulation of research using human reproductive materials is not proportionate, not responsive to the uncertain threats posed to human and environmental health and safety, and is not considerate of diverse values in a democratic society. We propose tailored regulatory carve-outs for in vitro research for currently prohibited activities, such as gene editing, and for the exercise of Ministerial Discretion for access by Canadians to experimental in vivo interventions that are currently prohibited, such as mitochondrial replacement therapy. Our recommendations are bounded by constitutional constraints …

July 4, 2019: Happy Fourth, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Happy Fourth“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Recent Developments, Raelynn J. Hillhouse

Arkansas Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constellation Of Benefits And A Universe Of Equal Protection: The Extension Of The Right To Marry Under Pavan V. Smith, Brad Aldridge

Arkansas Law Review

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges recognized the constitutional right of all persons, including same-sex couples, to lawfully marry. In 2017, in Pavan v. Smith, the Court recognized that Obergefell extends that right to much more than the act of marriage in itself. Any person who would have been denied the right to marry the person of her choice before Obergefell now enjoys not only the rights of marriage licensing and recognition, but also the full “constellation” of rights and responsibilities that attend marriage among traditional opposite-sex couples. The Court believed that this …

What Fema Should Do After Puerto Rico: Toward Critical Administrative Constitutionalism, Yxta Maya Murray

Arkansas Law Review

The 200th anniversary of the 1819 Supreme Court decision McCulloch v. Maryland offers scholars a special opportunity to study the shortcomings of the federal The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as they were revealed by FEMA’s failures in Puerto Rico during and after Hurricane Maria. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, as it has been interpreted by McCulloch, a law passed by Congress must be necessary and proper for executing its powers. In light of the expansive capacities allotted for disaster relief under the Stafford Act, and the catastrophic failure of FEMA to provide …

Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber

Arkansas Law Review

Daniel Webster warned Whig associates in 1841 that the Supreme Court would likely declare unconstitutional the national bank bill that Henry Clay was pushing through the Congress. This claim was probably based on inside information. Webster was a close association of Justice Joseph Story. The justices at this time frequently leaked word to their political allies of judicial sentiments on the issues of the day. Even if Webster lacked first-hand knowledge of how the Taney Court would probably rule in a case raising the constitutionality of the national bank, the personnel on that tribunal provided strong grounds for Whig pessimism. …

M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck

Arkansas Law Review

M’Culloch v. Maryland is rightly regarded as a landmark opinion, one that affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise implied powers, articulated a rule of deference to Congressional judgments about whether given legislative actions were in fact “necessary,” and limited the ability of the states to impair or restrict the operations of the federal government. Most scholarly discussions of the case and its legacy emphasize these aspects of the decision. Less common are attempts to place M’Culloch within the ebb and flow of the Marshall Court and the political and social realities of the time. So, for example, very few …

The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson

Arkansas Law Review

All legal “interpretation” involves confrontation with inherently indeterminate language. I have distinguished in my own work between what I call the Constitution of Settlement and the Constitution of Conversation. The former includes those aspects of the Constitution that do indeed seem devoid of interpretive challenge, such as the unfortunate assignment of two senators to each state or the specification of the terms of office of representatives, senators, and presidents. I am quite happy to concede that “two,” “four,” and “six” have determinate meaning, though my concession is not based on a fancy theory of linguistics. It is, rather, a recognition …

Mcculloch At 200, David S. Schwartz

Arkansas Law Review

March 6, 2019 marked the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s issuance of its decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, upholding the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States, the successor to Alexander Hamilton’s national bank. McCulloch v. Maryland involved a constitutional challenge by the Second Bank of the United States to a Maryland tax on the banknotes issued by the Bank’s Baltimore branch. The tax was probably designed to raise the Second Bank’s cost of issuing loans and thereby disadvantage it relative to Maryland’s own state-chartered banks. Marshall’s opinion famously rejected the Jeffersonian strict-constructionist argument that implied powers …

Scotus Gerrymandering Case: Roberts Didn’T Defend Constitutional Democracy, Bruce Ledewitz

Newspaper Columns

Collected biweekly contributions to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news site.

Scotus Gerrymandering Case: Roberts Didn't Defend Constitutional Democracy, Bruce Ledewitz

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

State Standing For Nationwide Injunctions Against The Federal Government, Jonathan R. Nash

Notre Dame Law Review

Recent years have seen a substantial increase of cases in which states seek, and indeed obtain, nationwide injunctions against the federal government. These cases implicate two complicated questions: first, when a state has standing to sue the federal government, and second, when a nationwide injunction is a proper form of relief. For their part, scholars have mostly addressed these questions separately. In this Essay, I analyze the two questions together. Along the way, I identify drawbacks and benefits of nationwide injunctions, as well as settings where nationwide injunctions may be desirable and undesirable. I present arguments that, although I do …

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine M. Crocker

Notre Dame Law Review

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

The Endogenous Fourth Amendment: An Empirical Assessment Of How Police Understandings Of Excessive Force Become Constitutional Law, Osagie K. Obasogie, Zachary Newman

Cornell Law Review

If the Fourth Amendment is designed to protect citizens from law enforcement abusing its powers, why are so many unarmed Americans killed? Traditional understandings of the Fourth Amendment suggest that it has an exogenous effect on police use of force, Le., that the Fourth Amendment provides the ground rules for how and when law enforcement can use force that police departments turn into use-of-force policies that ostensibly limit police violence. In this Article, we question whether this exogenous understanding of the Fourth Amendment in relation to excessive force claims is accurate by engaging in an empirical assessment of the use-of-force …

The Private Rights Of Public Governments, Seth Davis

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay charts the analytical and doctrinal confusion arising from the category of “proprietary” interests in state standing law. This category might be taken literally to include only the ownership of property and interests that stem from it. It might refer to interests that are analogous to those that a private corporation might litigate, or instead to any type of financial injury a state might suffer. Other possibilities would limit “proprietary” interests to those interests recognized under the common law, or only those interests recognized under private law. Perhaps the most that can be said is that “proprietary” interests should …

State Standing And Cooperative Federalism, Ernest A. Young

Notre Dame Law Review

State lawsuits challenging federal policy generally encounter arguments that the states lack standing to sue, either under Article III’s “case or controversy” clause or under various prudential standing doctrines. These arguments have often taken novel forms—such as claims that states’ injuries are “self-inflicted” or offset by other benefits of federal policies—that have few precedents or analogs in the standing jurisprudence governing suits by private individuals. The United States has taken the position, in other words, that states should have special disabilities in filing lawsuits that would not apply to ordinary litigants. Likewise, prominent academics have argued that uniquely narrow standing …

Foreword: Some Puzzles Of State Standing, Tara L. Grove

Notre Dame Law Review

When should states have standing? In recent years, there has been an explosion in literature on that question. Yet, even today, there seem to be as many questions as answers. In this Foreword to the Notre Dame Law Review's 2019 Federal Courts, Practice, and Procedure Symposium on state standing, I discuss a few such puzzles. First, should states have “special” standing when they sue the federal government—that is, greater access to federal court than private parties? Second, and conversely, should states have at least “equal” access to federal court, or should they face more barriers than private parties? These …

Reining In State Standing, Ann Woolhandler, Michael G. Collins

Notre Dame Law Review

In upholding standing in Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Stevens said that states “are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction.” While one might agree that the states are not normal litigants, that abnormality might well suggest that states should get standing less easily than private parties.

As a historical matter, states were limited in the kinds of cases they could bring in the federal courts. States typically could not litigate their sovereignty interests (their powers to govern to the exclusion of other governments), nor could they litigate their parens patriae interests (the interests of their citizens) …

Protecting Native Women From Violence: Fostering State-Tribal Relations And The Shortcomings Of The Violence Against Women Act Of 2013, Dayna Olson

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Native American women face violence at astronomically high rates compared to any other ethnic group in the United States. These staggering statistics are laregly the result of conflicting criminal jurisdiction between tribal, state, and federal prosecutors. As a result, crimes of intimate partner violence that take place on tribal reservations often go unpunished, leaving these women with little to no recourse. In 2013, President Obama signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation created the Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction, which gave Native American tribes the authority to prosecute a narrow set of non-tribal members for …