Constitutional Law Commons^™

Discriminatory Effect(S), W. Kerrel Murray

Faculty Scholarship

In constitutional law, “discriminatory effect” often matters. So it’s surprising how often we don’t quite know what it means. That opacity is trans-substantive; it has been a recent pitfall in contexts as diverse as admissions-policy challenges under the Equal Protection Clause, personal-jurisdiction disputes under the “dormant” Commerce Clause, and, under the Free Exercise Clause, requests for exemptions from facially neutral laws.

This Article’s first corrective is a novel typology. Constitutional discriminatory effect is murky, in part, because it has many types; we perceive it in myriad ways across constitutional domains. Comprehending this complexity enhances our understanding of what discriminatory-effect rules …

Complicit Nullification: The Illegitimate (Abrogation) Of School Religious Liberty Precedent, Amanda Harmon Cooley

Cardozo Law Review

Louisiana has enacted legislation that mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This statutory mandate directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s extant precedent in Stone v. Graham. Legislators in Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Kentucky have also indicated plans to introduce similar unconstitutional legislation, defying the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Similarly, Texas and Florida now permit public school chaplains or Bible-based public school curricula, which violates the Court’s longstanding prohibitions on such actions, as established in its 1948 ruling in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education …

The History Of Multi-Member Commissions At The Founding, 1789-1840: New Evidence On Independent Agencies, Victoria Frances Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The executive removal power figures prominently on the Supreme Court’s current agenda. That agenda is beset, however, by a historical misunderstanding, when it comes to multi-member bodies, which too often are assumed to be modern creatures. This paper provides crucial new historical evidence showing that the Founders, indeed a who’s who list of Founders, approved and even sat on commissions in the Republic’s early years. In some cases, the Founders called these early commissions “independent,” deferred to their judgments as “final,” and demanded that the members be “impartial.” Given the vast discretion given these commissions, these characteristics are best described …

Perkembangan Dan Ruang Lingkup Sosiologi Hukum, Mulyana W. Kusumah

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Hold Your Horses: The Eleventh Circuit Recognizes A Direct Cause Of Action Under The Takings Clause In Fulton V. Fulton County Board Of Commissioners, Brock Gumbel

Mercer Law Review

“[No person shall be] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In just twelve words, the drafters of the Bill of Rights guaranteed property owners a significant protection. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is not an express ban on government takings. Rather, it guarantees that when the government takes property from private citizens, it must provide just compensation. Although this guarantee is generally well established, its enforcement in federal court introduces unique and significant challenges.

Plaintiffs must have a cause of action to invoke …

Stuck In The Waiting Room: Medina V. Planned Parenthood’S Restriction On The Enforcement Of Spending Statutes Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Rebekah Rooks

Mercer Law Review

42 U.S.C. § 1983 was originally enacted in response to Ku Klux Klan violence during the Reconstruction era that had gone largely unpunished in state courts. The statute granted individuals an alternative means to enforce their “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” in federal courts. What began as a lifeline for civil rights violations soon expanded to allow enforcement of all rights secured by federal and constitutional law. This broad interpretation of § 1983 language expanded the statute’s reach to include private enforcement of federal spending statutes against the states. The expansion ignited extensive debate over …

Amicus Brief In Trump V. Barbara: An Originalist Defense Of Birthright Citizenship, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, Evan D. Bernick

Faculty Scholarship

For nearly all of the first 235 years under the Constitution, the citizenship of every child born in the United States to alien parents, with immaterial exceptions, was a given. Then, in 2025, the Trump administration changed course. Even though the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of limiting birthright citizenship to the children of domiciled parents, the Government now claims that is what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has always meant. While the Government and its amici admit that the common law recognized the citizenship of children of transient aliens, their remaining “survey of history range[s] from the constitutionally irrelevant” …

Foreword, Marlene Coss

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

When Constitutional Protection For Religious Liberty Gets Lost In Translation: A Case Study From Washington State, Robert W. Gomulkiewicz

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Protecting religious liberty can present difficult challenges when religious liberty conflicts with laws prohibiting discrimination. Balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination requires courts to accurately apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex First Amendment jurisprudence, including cases that address compelled speech, expressive association, and church autonomy. Amidst all the complexity, protection for religious liberty can get lost in translation. One important venue where protection can get lost in translation is in religious liberty cases decided by state supreme courts. The decisions of state supreme courts are especially significant because they provide the authoritative construction for state statutes and the state constitution. In …

The Merit Systems Protection Board And Removal Doctrine In The Second Trump Administration, Nathan A. Thomas

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

In a federal civil service of millions, a means of adjudicating internal employment disputes objectively and efficiently is integral to the continued confidence of the federal workforce.1 This is the role occupied by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.2 On February 10, 2025, President Trump fired MSPB Chairman Cathy Harris without citing any reason, in direct violation of the good cause standard needed to remove an MSPB Board member. 3 President Trump’s unjustified firing of Chairman Harris reopens the ongoing assault on removal doctrine, but this note argues that the structure of the MSPB is constitutional under current removal doctrine. …

Masthead

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Geofence Surveillance And The Possibility Of Radicalization, Bardia Moghtaderi Zadeh

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

No abstract provided.

Masalah Voting Dalam Praktek Demokrasi Pancasila, Razali Abdullah, S.H.

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Asas Patut Sebagai Asas Kerja Penyelesaian Perkara Menurut Hukum Adat Bali, Atmadja S.H.

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Kriminalistik, Pengungkap Materiele Waardheid, I Nyoman Nurjaya, S.H.

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Strategi Pencegahan Kejahatan Dan Pembangunan Nasional, Prof. Abdul Karim Nasution, S.H.

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Hak-Hak Azasi Manusia Menurut Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Dan Penjabarannya Di Dalam Hukum Perjanjian Nasional, Ny. Mariam Darus Badrulzaman

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

Manfaat Telaah Sosial Terhadap Hukum, Prof. Dr. Satjipto Rahardjo

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

Abstract

An Alternative Sacrifice: Religious Arbitration Agreements In Ministerial Employment Contracts, Grace E. Brandt

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

After decades of development in lower courts, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the ministerial exception in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012) and provided additional guidance in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020). The precise contours of the exception remain uncertain, but the doctrine—grounded in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment—effectively bars civil courts from reviewing claims against religious institutions that implicate ministerial employment decisions. Thus, ministers are unable to pursue redress for legitimate harms that occur within the scope of their religious employment, even if unrelated to religious doctrine. This …

Hiding Elephants In Mouseholes: Judicial (Mis)Application Of The Federal Arbitration Act To Attorney-Client Arbitration Agreements, Gregory L. Smith

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article criticizes cases and commentary that assume, without argument, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its decidedly pro-arbitration jurisprudence apply to determine the enforceability of private attorney-client arbitration agreements, thus preempting state bar rules governing disclosures that lawyers must otherwise provide to clients when proposing private, binding arbitration in place of bar-sponsored arbitration regimes. The author argues that applying the FAA and its jurisprudence to attorney-client arbitration agreements raises significant constitutional issues regarding the states’ recognized authority to regulate the legal profession—an issue that courts and commentators have simply ignored.