Constitutional Law Commons^™

Behemoth Unbound: An Internal Critique Of Carl Schmitt’S Nazi-State Structure, Zaynamin Murtaza

CMC Senior Theses

This paper offers an internal critique of Carl Schmitt's Nazi-era state theory from the perspective of the counterrevolutionary political-theological tradition to which Schmitt belongs. Using Schmitt's political-theological method which holds that all political theories have a systematic theological structure, the paper argues that Schmitt's 1933 turn to National Socialism contradicts this tradition. The paper proceeds in five sections. The first establishes the political-theological framework that will be utilized throughout the paper. The second develops Schmitt's concept of the katechon—the restrainer of lawlessness drawn from Christian eschatology— which he uses as a model for his theory of the state. The …

The Reception Of International Human Rights Law In Charter Litigation: "Not A Box Of Chocolates" But You Still "Never Know What You're Gonna Get", Karinne Lantz

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This article explores the reception of international human rights law(IHRL)in Canada. Focusing on the Charter context, it demonstrates that how IHRL applies in Canada continues to lack clarity despite repeated (and recent) efforts by the Supreme Court of Canada to provide it. This article argues that this lack of clarity is an important matter for the Court to address, particularly as IHRL is increasingly being invoked before courts and other tribunals around the world. It argues that the Court should adopt a methodology that: (i) endorses the “Dickson Doctrine,”according to which the “minimum protection approach”is robustly applied for international human …

How The Supreme Court’S Inconsistent Approach To Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate The Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed To Address, Harvey L. Reiter

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

The federal government has used the Supreme Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket to great effect this past year, securing stay after stay of lower court rulings that had blocked many of the President’s executive orders. But the Court’s rulings have come, almost invariably, without any explanation of its reasoning. And its opaque and uneven rulings have also come at a potential cost to the Court’s credibility. This Article illustrates the uneven nature of the Court’s rulings by contrasting two lines of cases: (1) the Court’s stays of lower court rulings restoring to their positions FTC, NLRB, EEOC, and MSPB members …

Undermining Discretion: The Selective Attacks On Progressive Prosecutors, Angela J. Davis

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal legal system. They decide whether to bring criminal charges and what those criminal charges should be. These decisions are totally within their discretion. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently protected the power and discretion of prosecutors in making these decisions, and legal challenges to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion have been largely unsuccessful.

In recent years, a growing number of individuals have successfully run for chief prosecutor on platforms of reducing the prison and jail populations, consistent with public safety. They pledged to use their power and discretion to implement policies …

Originalism As Disruption, Susan D. Carle

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article challenges the conventional understanding of originalism as a method that promotes unchanging constitutional meanings. Drawing on four and a half decades of experience since Attorney General Edwin Meese first championed originalism as a conservative project, this Article demonstrates that originalism has generally proven destabilizing rather than stabilizing to constitutional law. Landmark cases such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, and Shelby County v. Holder show that the Supreme Court frequently deploys originalism when it seeks to upend settled constitutional doctrine, contradicting claims …

Remote Access Restrictions To Immigration-Related Court Records, Doris H. Zhang

Fordham Law Review

Journalists today often report on newsworthy federal court cases by remotely accessing the court records online. However, thanks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c), remote access is not available by default in immigration-related cases. To obtain any court records in immigration cases, journalists must go to the courthouse, hire someone to go on their behalf, or ask the court to exercise its discretion to lift the Rule 5.2(c) remote access restrictions. These alternatives are burdensome, hindering the ability of the press and the public to keep track of immigration cases in federal courts. Despite the burdens on the press …

Five Lessons From Ken Kersch’S Conservatives And The Constitution For The Present Moment, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny, a New York Times bestseller, has the subtitle, “Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” Ken Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the Twentieth Century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. Although conservatism has changed in many ways since the 1954-1980 period on which Kersch’s book focuses, these lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., during the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and …

Spending Programs And The New Roberts Court, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. This article is the first to highlight and catalog the throughlines of argumentation, which sparked after states successfully challenged the ACA but have grown into opposing more than Medicaid’s cooperative federalism. This means federal and state programs that heavily rely on federal spending power are at risk, so studying this pattern is imperative. The article begins with a descriptive account of increasing spending power challenges, which make use of converging factors …

Justifying The Fourth Amendment, Daniel Epps

Scholarship@WashULaw

Why does the Fourth Amendment belong in the Constitution? This question is not whether society should impose some legal restraints on government searches and seizures. Rather, why should such protections reside in our national charter, superior to other forms of law and insulated from change via ordinary majoritarian political processes? Despite major disputes about the Fourth Amendment’s content, Fourth Amendment theorists rarely ask this question. Almost all agree that the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional protections are critically important—even if no one can agree exactly what those protections are.

This Article seeks a justification for the Fourth Amendment—the reason why search-and-seizure protections …

Tariffs And The Taxing Power: Historical Lessons For Major Questions And Nondelegation, Conor Clarke, Ari Glogower

Scholarship@WashULaw

American law is grappling with basic questions about the President’s power to impose tariffs—questions concerning whether Congress can delegate this authority, and the degree to which it has. But the ongoing tariff controversy emerges against a backdrop of conflicting and shifting historical practice. Early Congresses drafted tariff statutes in painstaking detail, while some of the broadest delegations in the early Republic involved internal taxes. In the modern era, by contrast, Congress has delegated more expansive tariff powers to the President, while retaining closer control over internal taxes. How should we understand this seemingly conflicting history of practice, and its relevance …

Foreword: The Constitution And Public Finance—Why Now And Why Ever?, Conor Clarke, Eric Kubo

Scholarship@WashULaw

This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review’s 2026 symposium issue on “Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.” We situate the symposium’s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v. United States; the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive control over appropriated funds; and the use of emergency and trade statutes to justify sweeping tariff authority.

We also step back to ask why constitutional issues in public finance—long treated as a technical backwater—have become such a central site of doctrinal and political conflict. We offer several explanations beyond …

Tariffs And The Progressive Fiscal Constitution, Lawrence J. Liu, Alex Zhang

Scholarship@WashULaw

For more than a century, progressive taxation has constituted the American fiscal state. A resurgent and expanding tariff regime, however, threatens that commitment to progressive distribution. Given the ongoing popularity of tariffs, this Article examines how they might be designed and administered in a way that mitigates their regressive distributive impact. The Article thus develops and assesses proposals to (1) vary tariff burdens in accordance with the consumption of imported goods, (2) reduce income- or payroll-tax burdens on lower-income households, and (3) earmark tariff revenue for specified spending programs. Although none is perfect, we seek to articulate possibilities and highlight …

Apportioned Direct Taxes, Conor Clarke, Ari Glogower

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Constitution requires that Congress apportion any “direct” tax among the states by population. This once-dormant provision is now the most important constitutional limitation on Congress’s taxing power. Last year, in Moore v. United States, the Supreme Court seriously considered, for the first time in decades, whether to invalidate an Act of Congress as an unapportioned direct tax. While the law survived, Moore has opened a new era in which scholars and policymakers must again take apportionment seriously. Yet the apportionment requirement remains poorly understood.

This Article provides a new perspective on apportionment by examining how Congress and Treasury …

Taking Legality Seriously: What The Major Questions Doctrine Is — And Isn't, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Ofra Bloch

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Major Questions Doctrine (MQD), a controversial recent innovation of the Roberts Court that applies stricter scrutiny to “major” actions taken by federal agencies, has faced criticism for being atextual, unprincipled, and nakedly ideological. But this critique misses the fact that the doctrine has near-exact analogues in many other legal systems, where it is an established tool for reining in executive overreach. This Article argues that, while the MQD reflects valid rule-of-law concerns, as applied, it lacks theoretical clarity, consistency and limits. More importantly, the Court itself lacks a theory of what the MQD is. We provide an answer grounded …

Distributional Reinforcement Theory, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

As Donald Trump’s assault on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) reveals, the concept of racial equality is sufficiently malleable that what used to be viewed as remedies for discrimination against racial minorities can now be recharacterized as reverse discrimination against the White majority. Such recharacterization is possible because the concept of equality itself lacks any stable meaning that exists independent of one’s normative preferences about race. In a democracy, normative disputes are properly resolved through the political process, unless there is some representation reinforcement defect that makes judicial intervention necessary to ensure compliance with our second order constitutional equality principle. …

Trolling The Rule Of Law: Presidential Lawfare, The Stalingrad Defense, And The Lawyers, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This paper, part of a symposium on presidential lawfare, examines the so-called “Stalingrad Defense”—a strategy of total procedural obstruction—within the broader phenomenon of rule-of-law backsliding facilitated by legal professionals. By exhausting judicial resources and weaponizing procedural delays on behalf of political leaders, such lawyers do not merely defend a client; they actively participate in subverting the institutional foundations of democracy. I argue that the standard conception of legal ethics, which emphasizes neutral partisanship and zealous advocacy, is fundamentally inadequate to capture the wrongfulness of lawyers who use legal tools to dismantle the legal system itself. In its place, I propose …

Gender Therapy False Equivalency, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

One critical dispute surrounding the rights of LGBTQ people and societal recognition of their existence is the legal debate regarding very different types of gender therapy. On the one hand, several states have banned the provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender youth, positing that it is a dangerous form of mutilation. A separate set of states has banned the practice of so-called gay or gender conversion therapy that seeks to transform youth away from their queer identities, concluding that it is a form of abuse. Both sets of laws have been challenged in courts with the Supreme Court recently …

Moody V. Netchoice And Telecom Law's First Amendment, Blake Reid

Publications

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Copyright Powers, Blake Reid

Publications

The United States Copyright Office’s multifarious roles in the U.S. copyright system have long prompted uncertainty about its position among the branches of the federal government. From its formal home in the Library of Congress, the chameleonic Office has accumulated a wide range of advisory, rulemaking, adjudicative, and administrative functions that have long prompted questions about both agencies’ exercise of dueling legislative and executive powers.

Despite its increasingly sprawling portfolio and unusual configuration, the Office has never faced a serious separation-of-powers reckoning—until now. In the span of just five days in May 2025, Donald Trump fired the Librarian of Congress …

Jawbreaking And Counterboning, Blake Reid

Publications

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s public campaign of unlawful threats against television broadcasters, culminating in the high-profile preemption and later return to air of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, provides an important natural experiment for the law of jawboning. The Kimmel-Carr episode highlights the challenges of legal remedies against government officials over even the most flagrantly coercive, unlawful, and public jawbones. It also highlights the importance of intermediaries refusing to comply with unlawful demands—what this Essay calls jawbreaking.

Using the Kimmel-Carr episode as a case study, this Essay proposes moving beyond voluntary incentives for jawbreaking to impose a mandatory duty to jawbreak …