Constitutional Law Commons^™

Gerrymandering The Electoral College, Henry S. Noyes

Marquette Law Review

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question. The Court’s opinion admits that “[e]xcessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” The injustice is the ability of the majority party to use political gerrymandering to entrench itself as the governing party and to remain so, long after that party falls out of favor.

Although Rucho was an Elections Clause case, it is easily applicable to states’ exercise of their Electors Clause power. Republicans will wield this new, nonjusticiable power (and the concomitant political cover that it provides) …

Standalone Frisks, Elias Neibart, Bobby Levine

Marquette Law Review

We all think we understand Terry v. Ohio. But we don’t. In fact, for decades, we’ve taken the wrong doctrinal lesson from Terry and its progeny.

Even though Terry discussed the constitutional standards surrounding “stop-and-frisks,” many of us have interpreted Terry as only permitting a “stop-and-then-a-frisk”—that is, a police officer is permitted to stop an individual on the suspicion that he is about to engage in criminal activity, and then, and only then, can that officer frisk the individual if he believes the suspect is armed and dangerous. But that’s not right. The Terry Court never said that. And …

Decoding The Path Of Constitutional Exclusion In Wisconsin Digital Evidence Cases, Amelia Boruch

Marquette Law Review

Criminal cases involving novel digital evidence warrants often raise constitutional and suppression issues. As these constitutional issues become harder to resolve, resolution of the suppression issues becomes easier to predict. Where officers obtain warrants to use cutting-edge investigative techniques in the absence of any legal authority, it is unlikely that evidence obtained pursuant to those warrants will be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. Even if the exclusionary rule were “triggered,” the good faith exception would likely apply to preclude suppression. Either way, the outcome is clear: suppression is unlikely.

Confidence in the outcome of these suppression issues has seemingly taken …

The Unmaking Of Section Two, Maureen Edobor

Scholarly Articles

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act now stands at a paradoxical crossroads. Though it remains the statute’s central protection against racial vote dilution after Shelby County v. Holder, it is increasingly undermined by a constitutional framework that treats race-conscious remedies as suspect rather than necessary under Section 2. This Essay argues that Section 2 is being quietly unmade—not through direct invalidation, but through the convergence of Equal Protection Doctrine, racial-gerrymandering jurisprudence, and an ascendant commitment to colorblind constitutionalism. Tracing the Fifteenth Amendment’s original design and Congress’s expansive enforcement authority, the Essay situates Section 2 within a constitutional tradition …

287(G) Or Not 287(G)? That Is The Question: Nevada’S Role In Regulating Local-Federal Cooperation On Immigration Enforcement, Zachary Sweetin, Elizabeth Swenson

Nevada Law Journal Forum

This White Paper aims to examine the authority of local agencies and institutions in Nevada to enter into cooperative 287(g) agreements with ICE without state approval. Part I provides an overview of the history and structure of 287(g) agreements, including the recent adoption of this cooperative model by four Nevada jurisdictions. This Paper will also explore sections of Nevada Re- vised Statutes that may affect the legality of 287(g) agreements, focusing in Part II on Nevada’s modified Dillon’s Rule and in Part III on Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 228.206. Using pending American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU) litigation against …

Legislative Support Of Religious Policy In Ukraine Under Martial Law, Volodymyr Karpunets, Andrii Shevchuk, Oleksandr Bilchuk

Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe

The article examines the legislative framework of Ukraine's religious policy under the conditions of martial law caused by the full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The constitutional foundations of state-confessional relations are analyzed, particularly the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine on freedom of conscience and religion, as well as Article 64, which provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on religious rights under martial law. Key legislative acts are reviewed: the Laws of Ukraine "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations" (1991, with amendments in 2018 and 2019), "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law" …

The Intertemporal Law Doctrine’S Application To The Acquisition Of Colonies In The Americas, Kent Mcneil

All Papers

The intertemporal doctrine provides that international disputes have to be resolved in accordance with the international law that existed at the time the events giving rise to the dispute took place, not at the time the matter is adjudicated.1 It is thought to be impermissible to apply current standards to events that occurred in the past when different legal principles and rules were the norm. This doctrine applies as much to acquisition of colonies as to other international issues.2 So in order to determine whether a European nation acquired sovereignty over an overseas territory, it is necessary to determine and …

Private Prosecution And The State, Anna Arons

Faculty Publications

The modern family regulation system is paradigmatically public. In the common account, the state plays a monopolistic role. It decides which families to investigate and which to prosecute, which families to surveil and which to separate, and which services and benefits to provision for families entangled in the system. Yet, this public family regulation paradigm obscures the role of private prosecution. Nearly half of states permit private individuals to initiate dependency prosecutions. In these cases, private prosecutors allege that parents have neglected or abused their children and seek state intervention on the fundamental right to family integrity.

This Article surfaces …

Law’S Limits: Abortion And The Social Determinants Of Health, Maya Manian

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

After Dobbs: How the Supreme Court Ended Roe but Not Abortion (“After Dobbs”) is a prescient and timely response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and upended nearly five decades of constitutional protection for abortion. In this meticulously structured oral history, law professor David S. Cohen and sociologist Carole Joffe center the voices of abortion providers, clinic administrators, funders, and advocates from across the country. After Dobbs, not only documents the extraordinary persistence of abortion supporters in the face of legal devastation but also bears witness to …

Who Makes The Jury? Demographics And Decision-Making In The Jury Process., Ana B. Pons

Honors Undergraduate Theses

Within the American judicial system, juries have played a central role in promoting representation and fairness in the courtroom. However, limited information exists on whether prosecutorial decisions during jury selection, jury composition, or jury behavior differ based on the sex, race/ethnicity, type of case, political ideology, or geographic location of potential jurors. Following PRISMA guidelines, this scoping review synthesizes 48 peer-reviewed articles published between the 1940s and 2026 to examine whether prosecutorial decision-making and jury outcomes vary based on the sex, race/ethnicity, type of case, political ideology, or geographic location of potential jurors. Findings indicated that men are disproportionately selected …

Eroding Protections: The Decline Of Miranda Rights And Its Impact On Due Process In Contemporary America, Autumn G. Pelfrey

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis examines whether the protections established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), remain robust within contemporary criminal justice practice or have been weakened through doctrinal and practical developments. Miranda warnings were originally designed to mitigate the risk that coercive custodial interrogation would produce compelled or unreliable self-incrimination. Since 1966, however, both judicial interpretation and evolving law-enforcement practices have created a growing gap between Miranda’s formal legal promise and its practical operation in real-world interrogations.

The study evaluates the erosion of Miranda’s protective force through three primary mechanisms. First, doctrinal developments have narrowed Miranda’s scope by redefining …

Against Doctrinal Siloing: Harmonizing Fiscal Federalism And The U.S. Constitution, David Gamage, Darien Shanske

Faculty Publications

This Essay argues that constitutional law’s treatment of fiscal federalism has fractured into a bewildering collection of doctrinal silos. Federal spending that pressures states, federal preemption of state taxes, the Dormant Commerce Clause, sovereign immunity, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal taxing power are all analyzed through distinct tests, even when they implicate the same basic conflict between federal authority and state fiscal autonomy. The result is not just theoretical confusion but inconsistent constitutional answers. Current doctrine can protect states from comparatively modest liabilities while leaving uncertain whether Congress may displace large swaths of state revenue authority. …

Race, Memory, And Authority In Constitutional Interpretation, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This Essay considers how America’s history and memory regarding race complicate constitutional interpretation. If scholars interpreted the Constitution merely to determine what the majority view of the Constitution may have been when it was ratified—its original public meaning (“OPM”)—the loose use of history and memory to interpret the Constitution might be acceptable. What the People—whose membership is contested—thought the Constitution meant when it was framed is interesting, so long as it does not bind us today. However, as Jack Balkin notes in Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation, lawyers and judges attempt to use history and …

Abandoning Press Freedom, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Among elected officials and the broader public, attitudes toward the press are deeply polarized along ideological lines. Polling shows that most liberals favor the press, while conservatives view it more negatively— a partisan divide that has widened significantly over the past decade. Conventional wisdom suggests that the same ideological split is also at work at the Supreme Court, with liberal Justices championing the work of the press while their conservative colleagues express more skepticism. This perception is reinforced by historical examples of liberal Justices advancing press rights alongside broader democracy-engagement and social-justice issues. Recent calls from some conservative Justices to …

Gienapp's Big Book: Conceptual Rupture, Modernism, And The End Of Originalism, Logan E. Sawyer Iii

Scholarly Works

For decades, we have lived in an age of partisan jurisprudence, in which nearly every Republican has embraced originalism, and nearly every Democrat has rejected it. One can mark the start of that era in multiple places, but one good choice is November 11th, 1977. That day, in the pages of National Review, William F. Buckley previewed Government by Judiciary, Raoul Berger’s originalist critique of the Warren Court’s rights revolution. The review, entitled “Berger’s Big Book,” was highly complimentary. Berger’s rebuke of Warren Court activism was, Buckley thought, “devastating.” And he was not alone. Following the publication of Government by …

Press Freedom's History And Tradition, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Backward-looking, history-and-tradition analysis is gaining greater prominence at the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Court has not yet explicitly applied its history-and-tradition framework to press freedom questions, the methodology’s dominance across other areas, coupled with some urgent concerns about the scope of newsgatherer protections and some Justices’ interest in reconsidering long-established precedent, suggest that this application could be imminent. In anticipation of that moment, we set out to empirically map the Court’s engagement with the history and tradition of press freedom in its rhetoric over time. Our goals were to explore, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how the Court’s Justices have …

Qui Tam Legislation And Article Ii: State Constitutional Precursors To The “Take Care” Clause, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

Anglo-American legislation since the fourteenth century has often authorized “popular” or “qui tam” enforcement, in which an uninjured “common informer” litigates to collect a forfeiture for violation of a statute. Popular enforcement has become considerably less common than in earlier centuries, but remains important because of the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA). In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, the Supreme Court rejected an Article III standing challenge to qui tam litigation, concluding that the long history of popular enforcement means qui tam suits present cognizable “cases and controversies of …

Balancing The Scales Of Justice: The Unconstitutionality Of Marital Rape In India, Pallavi Raju

CMC Senior Theses

Marital rape remains an unpunished crime in India, despite decades of dispute and litigation. This thesis explores the question of why the state continues to retain the marital rape exception within the Indian criminal code, even though it commits to combat gender based violence in other areas of justice. The research begins with a broader understanding of privatization of women’s rights in the international sphere and culturally sanctioned violence to protect the institution of marriage. With a focus on the legal justifications and language of Indian court cases, this thesis determines that judges adjudicate on gender justice inconsistently. Attempting to …

A New Playbook: The Procedural Resilience Of Oregon’S Rooney Rule In The Wake Of Students For Fair Admissions V. Harvard, Jada I. Cook

CMC Senior Theses

This article evaluates the constitutionality of Oregon’s codified Rooney Rule considering the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. Passed in 2009, the Oregon mandate requires public universities to include at least one minority applicant in the interview process for all head coaching vacancies. By analyzing the architectural origins of the Rooney Rule within the National Football League (NFL) and the systemic racial exclusion it sought to dismantle, this research explores whether interview-stage mandates, that are applied at the state level, can survive the rigorous application of the strict scrutiny standard. …

Adequate Representation In Group Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This article examines the inherent tension between the legal system's desire for "global peace" (finality) and the constitutional requirement for adequate representation in collective lawsuits. While Rule 23 class actions provide structural safeguards—such as judicial oversight of counsel and settlement, and opt-out rights—alternative mechanisms like multidistrict litigation (MDL) and parens patriae suits often lack these protections . Using the In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation as a primary case study, the article illustrates how informal, "backroom" leadership selection in MDLs empowers a small circle of elite "repeat players" at the expense of marginalized groups, such as Native American tribes and …