Constitutional Law Commons^™

Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction, Kevin C. Walsh

William & Mary Law Review

This Article introduces the idea of judicial departmentalism and argues for its superiority to judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy is the idea that the Constitution means for everybody what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Judicial departmentalism, by contrast, is the idea that the Constitution means in the judicial department what the Supreme Court says it means in deciding a case. Within the judicial department, the law of judgments, the law of remedies, and the law of precedent combine to enable resolutions by the judicial department to achieve certain kinds of settlements. Judicial departmentalism holds that these …

After Flint: Environmental Justice As Equal Protection, David A. Dana, Deborah Tuerkheimer

Northwestern University Law Review

This Essay conceptualizes the Flint water crisis as an archetypical case of underenforcement—that is, a denial of the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Viewed as such, the inadequacy of environmental regulation can be understood as a failure that extends beyond the confines of Flint; a failure that demands a far more expansive duty to protect vulnerable populations.

Erisa Preemption After Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual: Completing The Retrenchment Of Shaw, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent preemption decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In Gobeille, the Court completed the process of reconciling the restrained approach to ERISA preemption announced in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. with the Court’s literal and expansive approach adopted earlier in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Gobeille consummated this reconciliation by confirming the sub silentio retrenchment of Shaw and its “plain language” approach in favor of Traveler’s broader construction of ERISA preemption. …

Immigration Exceptionalism, David S. Rubenstein, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is littered with special immigration doctrines that depart from mainstream constitutional norms. This Article reconciles these doctrines of “immigration exceptionalism” across constitutional dimensions. Historically, courts and commentators have considered whether immigration warrants exceptional treatment as pertains to rights, federalism, or separation of powers—as if developments in each doctrinal setting can be siloed. This Article rejects that approach, beginning with its underlying premise. Using contemporary examples, we demonstrate how the Court’s immigration doctrines dynamically interact with each other, and with politics, in ways that affect the whole system. This intervention provides a far more accurate rendering of …

Withholding Judgment: In Reading The Constitution, Judges Should Consider Their Own Morals,, Bruce Ledewitz

Ledewitz Papers

Published scholarship collected from academic journals, law reviews, newspaper publications & online periodicals

How The Constitution Shall Not Be Construed, Lochlan F. Shelfer

BYU Law Review

The dominant historical narrative of the Ninth Amendment views the Clause as an exclusively “Federalist” provision with one purpose: to protect against the fear among Federalists that the very enumeration of any rights in a Constitution would imply that the universe of unenumerated natural rights was left unprotected, or that federal power would be expanded by implication.

This narrative of the Ninth Amendment, however, is incomplete in that it ignores the Clause’s Anti-Federalist side. This Article argues that the Ninth Amendment was proposed and ratified partly in response to the Anti-Federalist fear that particular rights-guaranteeing provisions of the Constitution could …

Penguatan Peran Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Dalam Struktur Ketatanegaraan Indonesia, R. Nazriyah

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Nevertheless, the amendment (fifth) should be done with wisdom, sincerity, deliberation, and After the constitutional amendment the Assembly's role was limited only on disseminate the results of the 1945 amendment and appoint President and Vice President. Strengthening the role of the Assembly now has begun to appear with the revival of the tradition of the annual session of the Assembly, with less in this way the performance of the President and other state institutions can be controlled and serve as checks and balances. Discourse to reuse the guidelines need to consider the following matters: first, it should be clearly who …

Peremptory Challenge - Divining Rod For A Sympathetic Jury?, Gilda Mariani

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Individual Liberty And The Common Good - The Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion, Brendan F. Brown

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Crime And The Law: Sociologico-Legal Observations, Wenceslas J. Wagner

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

History And Constitutional Interpretation: Some Lessons From The Vice Presidency, Joel K. Goldstein

Arkansas Law Review

In recent times, the principal demarcation in academic discussions of constitutional theory and judicial decision-making separates originalists and living constitutionalists. Both categories include a variety of approaches, but in essence originalists believe that a constitutional text means forever what it meant when it became part of the Constitution, whereas living constitutionalists believe that constitutional meaning is not fixed but evolves in response to societal changes. Living constitutionalists draw inspiration from Chief Justice John Marshall’s immortal words from McCulloch v. Maryland that the Constitution is “intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently to be adapted to the various crises …

An Alcohol Mindset In A Drug-Crazed World: A Review Of Birchfield V. North Dakota, Devon Beeny

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive …

Ditching Your Duty: When Must Private Entities Comply With Federal Antidiscrimination Law?, Tara Knapp

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This Commentary considers how the Fifth Circuit characterizes “services, programs, and activities” of public agencies in Ivy v. Williams, in the context of determining whether a private entity is subject to federal antidiscrimination law. “Services, programs, and activities” of public agencies must comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether directly distributed by a public or a private entity. This Commentary argues private driving schools in Texas that distribute a driving course necessary to obtaining a drivers’ license are subject to Title II because the providing the course functionally constitutes a program of the Texas Education …

Of Spies, Saboteurs, And Enemy Accomplices: History’S Lessons For The Constitutionality Of Wartime Military Tribunals, Martin S. Lederman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Congress has recently authorized military commissions to try enemies not only for violations of the international law of war, but also for domestic-law offenses, such as providing material support to terrorism and conspiring to commit law-of-war offenses. Moreover, President Trump has indicated support for further military trials, including trials against U.S. citizens. Such military tribunals lack the civilian jury and independent judge that Article III of the Constitution prescribes. The constitutionality of such an abrogation of Article III’s criminal trial guarantees has been debated during many of the nation’s wars without clear resolution, and the constitutional question is now at …

The Extraordinary Judicial Rebukes Of Trump's Travel Ban, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "President Trump's two executive orders suspending travel to the United States by refugees and foreign nationals from several Muslim-majority countries have been put on hold by a number of lower court federal judges.

Whatever might be said about the merits of these rulings, and regardless of whether they will be upheld in future appeals, they are extraordinary judicial rebukes of a sitting president."

March 26, 2017: Tom Berry Vs Tomorrowland, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Tom Berry vs Tomorrowland“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief And Brief For The National Association For Public Defense And Kentucky Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Sneed V. Burress (U.S. March 24, 2017) (No. 16-8047)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Drawing Lines: Racial Gerrymandering In Bethune-Hill V. Virginia Board Of Elections, Scott Reed

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court had to decide whether twelve Virginia challenged legislative districts, in which a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor was imposed, withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Court, though stating that the lower court misapplied precedent, declined to hold that race predominated in the formation of the districts and that strict scrutiny would be triggered, instead remanding to the lower court for reexamination. This commentary argues that the Court missed an opportunity to hold that a 55% BVAP floor prioritized above all else is per se racial predomination, and such a …

Birchfield V. North Dakota: Warrantless Breath Tests And The Fourth Amendment, Sara Jane Schlafstein

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court explored warrantless breath tests during DUI stops and their validity under the Fourth Amendment. To determine their constitutionality, the Court adopted a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in preventing instances of drunk driving with the intrusion on an individual’s privacy. The Court ultimately concluded that warrantless breath tests are constitutional when conducted incident to a lawful DUI arrest. This commentary explores the Court’s reasoning and holding and will argue that the Court was correct in deciding that a warrant is not necessary for conducting a breath test incident to a …

May The Best Canon Win: Lockhart V. United States And The Battle Of Statutory Interpretation, Hassan Shaikh

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Lockhart v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence for recidivists who had previously been convicted under federal or state crimes relating to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” In expected fashion, the Court relied on the statute’s plain meaning to decide whether Lockhart’s previous crime had triggered the mandatory minimum. However, even with identical approaches to the text, the majority and dissent reached contrary conclusions. This commentary explores how a single approach could result in …