Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking,
2017
University at Buffalo School of Law
Semantic Vagueness And Extrajudicial Constitutional Decisionmaking, Anthony O'Rourke
Journal Articles
No abstract provided.
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice,
2017
Notre Dame Law School
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Journal Articles
In the realm of Federal Courts, the question of “implied rights of action” asks when, if ever, may a plaintiff bring a federal right of action for the violation of a federal statute that does not expressly create one. Justice Scalia argued that a court should not entertain an action for damages for the violation of a federal statute unless the text of the statute demonstrates that Congress meant to create a right of action. The Supreme Court adopted this approach in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Certain judges and scholars have argued …
The Commercial Difference,
2017
William & Mary Law School
The Commercial Difference, Felix T. Wu
William & Mary Law Review
When it comes to the First Amendment, commerciality does, and should, matter. This Article develops the view that the key distinguishing characteristic of corporate or commercial speech is that the interest at stake is “derivative,” in the sense that we care about the speech interest for reasons other than caring about the rights of the entity directly asserting a claim under the First Amendment. To say that the interest is derivative is not to say that it is unimportant, and one could find corporate and commercial speech interests to be both derivative and strong enough to apply heightened scrutiny to …
From Grace To Grids: Rethinking Due Process Protections For Parole.,
2017
University of Michigan Law School
From Grace To Grids: Rethinking Due Process Protections For Parole., Kimberly A. Thomas, Paul D. Reingold
Articles
Current due process law gives little protection to prisoners at the point of parole, even though the parole decision, like sentencing, determines whether or not a person will serve more time or will go free. The doctrine regarding parole, which developed mostly in the late 1970s, was based on a judicial understanding of parole as an experimental, subjective, and largely standardless art—rooted in assessing the individual “character” of the potential parolee. In this Article we examine the foundations of the doctrine, and conclude that the due process inquiry at the point of parole should take into account the stark changes …
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law,
2017
University of Michigan Law School
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Articles
Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …
Justice Scalia, The Nondelegation Doctrine, And Constitutional Argument,
2017
Notre Dame Law School
Justice Scalia, The Nondelegation Doctrine, And Constitutional Argument, William K. Kelley
Journal Articles
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote two major opinions considering the nondelegation doctrine. In Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, he accepted and applied a very broad, indeed virtually unlimited, view of Congress's power to delegate authority to administrative agencies that was consistent with the Court's precedents since the New Deal. In his dissent in Mistretta v. United States, however, he concluded that the constitutional structure formally barred the delegation of naked rulemaking power to an agency that was untethered to other law execution tasks. This essay analyzes Justice Scalia's nondelegation jurisprudence in light of the general jurisprudential commitments he championed throughout his …
When Facts Don't Matter,
2017
Brigham Young University Law School
When Facts Don't Matter, Eric Berger
BYU Law Review
We are used to thinking that facts shape legal outcomes, but sometimes the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with facts. In some high-profile constitutional decisions, the Roberts Court has ignored important congressional findings, deeming irrelevant facts that document the very mischief Congress sought to remedy. Similarly, in these same cases the Court exploits the muddy line between facial and as-applied challenges to avoid confronting particular facts. The Justices in these cases do not question the veracity of seemingly relevant facts. Rather, they write their opinions as though these facts don’t matter. This Article examines the Court’s penchant for brushing …
Take The Fifth . . . Please!: The Original Insignificance Of The Fifth Amendment’S Due Process Of Law Clause,
2017
Brigham Young University Law School
Take The Fifth . . . Please!: The Original Insignificance Of The Fifth Amendment’S Due Process Of Law Clause, Gary Lawson
BYU Law Review
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause adds nothing to the Constitution’s original meaning. Every principle for limiting federal executive, judicial, and even legislative powers that can plausibly be attributed to the idea of “due process of law”—from the principle of legality forbidding executive or judicial action in the absence of law, to the requirement of notice before valid judicial judgments, to the limitation on arbitrary governmental action that today goes under the heading of “substantive due process”—is already contained in the text and structure of the Constitution of 1788. The Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause confirms …
Rights Dynamism,
2017
William & Mary Law School
The Power Canons,
2017
William & Mary Law School
The Power Canons, Lisa Heinzerling
William & Mary Law Review
With three recent decisions—Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, King v. Burwell, and Michigan v. EPA—the Supreme Court has embraced a new trio of canons of statutory interpretation. When an agency charged with administering a long-existing statute asserts regulatory authority it has not previously used, in a matter having large economic and political significance, its interpretation will be met with skepticism. When an agency charged with administering an ambiguous statutory provision answers a question of large economic and political significance, one central to the statutory regime, and the Court believes the agency is not an expert …
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later,
2017
University of Michigan Law School
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
Articles
A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …
The Unconstitutional Application Of Apprehension And Detention Laws: Section 236(C) Of The Immigration And Nationality Act,
2017
Thomas J. Henry
The Unconstitutional Application Of Apprehension And Detention Laws: Section 236(C) Of The Immigration And Nationality Act, Rigoberto Ledesma
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming.
The Trouble With Transitions: Preserving Government Records During A Presidential Transition,
2017
University of Georgia School of Law
The Trouble With Transitions: Preserving Government Records During A Presidential Transition, Sarah C. Slinger, Nicholas Mignanelli
Scholarly Works
Times of transition from administration to administration are often, if not always, trying periods for the United States and its people. In particular, concerns arise over the preservation of documents from one administration to the next. This is especially true when the torch of executive power passes from one party to the other. Although preservation of information is a seemingly objective endeavor, it is difficult to abstain from politics when the documents involved are inherently political. Recently, the Trump Administration has expressed its intentions to scale back the size of government and take key offices—such as the Department of Energy—in …
Searching For Federal Judicial Power: Article Iii And The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
2017
Roger Williams University School of Law
Searching For Federal Judicial Power: Article Iii And The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Peter Margulies
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment,
2017
Boston University School of Law
The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin
Faculty Scholarship
Before Miranda was decided, the Court had not squarely confronted the issue of when a violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs. Over fifty years ago, the Court acknowledged that the right against self-incrimination has two interrelated facets: The Government may not use compulsion to elicit self-incriminating statements; and the Government may not permit the use in a criminal trial of self-incriminating statements elicited by compulsion. Back then, the “conceptual difficulty of pinpointing” when a constitutional violation occurs — when the Government employs compulsion, or when the compelled statement is actually admitted at trial — was unimportant. Chavez v. Martinez forced …
Did Justice Scalia Have A Theory Of Interpretation?,
2017
Boston Univeristy School of Law
Did Justice Scalia Have A Theory Of Interpretation?, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
It seems beyond bizarre to ask whether Justice Scalia had a theory of textual interpretation. If he did not have such a theory, what were he and his critics talking about for the past three decades? The answer is that they were talking about part of a theory of textual interpretation but not an actual, complete theory. A complete theory of textual interpretation must prescribe principles of admissibility (what counts towards meaning), significance (how much does the admissible evidence count), standards of proof (how much evidence do you need for a justified conclusion), burdens of proof (does inertia lie with …
"Plausible Cause": Explanatory Standards In The Age Of Powerful Machines,
2017
Vanderbilt University Law School
"Plausible Cause": Explanatory Standards In The Age Of Powerful Machines, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
Vanderbilt Law Review
Much scholarship in law and political science has long understood the U.S. Supreme Court to be the "apex" court in the federal judicial system, and so to relate hierarchically to "lower" federal courts. On that top-down view, exemplified by the work of Alexander Bickel and many subsequent scholars, the Court is the principal, and lower federal courts are its faithful agents. Other scholarship takes a bottom-up approach, viewing lower federal courts as faithless agents or analyzing the "percolation" of issues in those courts before the Court decides. This Article identifies circumstances in which the relationship between the Court and other …
Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists,
2017
Penn State Dickinson Law
Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists, Frank Sullivan
Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs (2012 - Present)
No abstract provided.
Jury Deliberation,
2017
[email protected]
Jury Deliberation, Giuliana Pietrantoni
The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research
Juries are tasked with the duty of deliberating and applying the law to the case at hand. But it is unclear whether juries deliberate or deliberate well enough. Factors which may affect jury deliberation are the motivation of jurors, characteristics of jurors, emotions during and after trial, bargaining, charges, and dissenters. This paper argues that jurors do engage in rigorous dialogue which eventually results in compromises, although whether this creates an unjust verdict is unclear.
Federalism And The End Of Obamacare,
2017
University of Michigan Law School
Federalism And The End Of Obamacare, Nicholas Bagley
Articles
Federalism has become a watchword in the acrimonious debate over a possible replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Missing from that debate, however, is a theoretically grounded and empirically informed understanding of how best to allocate power between the federal government and the states. For health reform, the conventional arguments in favor of a national solution have little resonance: federal intervention will not avoid a race to the bottom, prevent externalities, or protect minority groups from state discrimination. Instead, federal action is necessary to overcome the states’ fiscal limitations: their inability to deficit-spend and the constraints that federal law …
