Constitutional Law Commons^™

"Simple Accommodation": A Solution For Conflicts Between Religious Claims And Secular Law?, Laura S. Underkuffler

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ten Commandments In Louisiana Public Schools: A Study In The Survival Of Establishment Norms, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Liberty And The Constitution, Steven J. Heyman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Symposium — In Search Of Common Ground: Religion And Secularism In A Liberal Democratic Society, Kathleen A. Brady, Steven J. Heyman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

History, Tradition, And Finding Common Ground: The Establishment Clause And Religious Expression By The State, Kathleen A. Brady

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Diversity, Tradition, And The Religion Clauses, Steven D. Smith

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Attempting To Protect The Liberty And Equality Of Minority Faiths And Nonreligious Individuals When The Surpreme Court Will Not Do So, Alan Brownstein

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Gay Rights-Religious Liberty Contortions, Andrew Koppelman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Employment And The Tensions Between Liberty And Equality, R. Shawn Gunnarson, James C. Phillips, Christopher A. Bates

BYU Law Review

Located in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an exemption for religious employers that is often misunderstood. Often courts and commentators mischaracterize it as a narrow privilege for religious employers to hire people of the same religion. But the statute’s text says otherwise. This article resolves interpretive debates about the meaning and application of the religious employer exemption through a close textualist reading that discovers a new understanding of the structure of Title VII. Our approach applies the tools of textualism, the prevailing theory of statutory interpretation. Paying attention to the text and structure of Title …

The Inconvenience Doctrine, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

BYU Law Review

In a nation of stark inequalities, the Roberts Court is often portrayed as siding with the wealthy and powerful. Many scholars argue that the Court has abandoned legal principles altogether and instead simply chooses winners and losers based on the conservative majority’s political agenda. Meanwhile, scholarly examinations of the legal reasoning underlying the Court’s most impactful decisions are largely confined to specific subject areas. Such compartmentalized analyses, though, overlook broader patterns in the Court’s rulings that transcend substantive legal boundaries.

This Article bridges the gap in these parallel conversations by connecting the Roberts Court’s reasoning across many legal fields with …

Making A Martyr: The Inequity Of The Necessity Doctrine’S Application To The Fifth Amendment’S Takings Clause, Max Abrams

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Insider Trading & Unconstitutionally Compelled Speech, Steven J. Cleveland

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Can’T Blaine A State For Trying: Writing A Constitutional Blaine Amendment After Carson V. Makin, Ry Stratton

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Rise And [?] Of Anti-Administrativism, Gary Lawson

BYU Law Review

Scholars have proclaimed the administrative state to be “Under Siege” or subject to a “Never-Ending Assault.” Was the election of President Donald Trump on November 5, 2024, the sixth, if not yet the seventh, day around the walls?

This seems an appropriate time to consider the present and future of opposition to the administrative state—something that has come to be dubbed “anti-administrativism.” The first task, as is usually the case when one seeks intellectual clarity, is to figure out what one is talking about. What is this “anti-administrativism”? Without knowing the answer to that seemingly simple question, one cannot accurately …

Textualist Reasoning And The Open Fields Doctrine: A Survey Of State-Constitutional Decisions, Ariel Krogue

BYU Law Review

State constitutions can, and often do, provide more extensive individual rights than the Federal Constitution affords. When this occurs, state courts frequently cite textual differences between the Federal Constitution and their own state constitutions to explain their departures from federal norms. But do textual differences between the Federal Constitution and state constitutions actually explain why some states offer more constitutional protection than the federal government does? When it comes to the Fourth Amendment’s open fields doctrine, the answer is no.

This Note provides a fifty-state survey of state-constitutional search and seizure provisions; it also identifies those states that have rejected …

An Exception To Prove The Rule: Rebutting The Presumption Of A Consistent And Definitive Construction, Miles C. Skedsvold

Mercer Law Review

Because the State of Georgia has had ten constitutions since declaring independence from Great Britain, the history of those prior constitutions has a lot to do with understanding the Constitution in force today. In particular, when a provision is carried forward from one constitution to the next without material change, the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decisions interpreting that provision under an earlier constitution can be a key piece of evidence for understanding its meaning in the later one.

The Supreme Court of Georgia calls this piece of the historical inquiry the presumption of a consistent and definitive construction: the provision …

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms In Georgia, John R. Monroe

Mercer Law Review

This Article provides a survey of the right to keep and bear arms in Georgia as it has developed from colonial times to the present. While this Article is not about the Second Amendment, references to that amendment cannot be avoided because the two are intertwined.

The Article follows Georgia’s right to keep and bear arms in roughly chronological order, where discreet periods in history can be seen to have heavy influence on laws impacting the right to keep and bear arms. These periods include Colonial, Antebellum, Civil War years, Reconstruction and late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, and finally …

Brief Of Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Appellants, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

Nos. 25-2575, 25-2662
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 2:17-cv-04540-WB (Hon. Wendy Bettlestone)

From the Summary of the Argument

The agencies’ promulgation of the Religious and Moral Rules challenged in this case was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Widespread litigation against the agencies’ contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act— and multiple trips to the Supreme Court—made clear that the mandate violates the federally protected rights of organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor. After years of failed efforts to alleviate that …

A Conversation With Judge Stephanos Bibas, Stephanos Bibas, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

On Friday, March 28th, 2025, the Catholic University Law Review hosted its annual spring symposium: Traditional Judicial Power & Doctrinal Development, which included a conversation between Judge Stephanos Bibas and Professor Kevin C. Walsh. The conversation covered topics such as standing, severability, and preliminary injunctions. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered.

Rules Of Decision, Judicial Power, And The Valid Rule Requirement, John Harrison

Catholic University Law Review

Some current Supreme Court debates that concern seemingly specialized issues raise fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution in the legal system and the role of the courts when they decide constitutional issues. In recent years, Justice Thomas has suggested that the doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth, so-called third-party standing in cases involving constitutional liberty, and statutory inseverability call on federal courts to exceed their role under Article III. Justice Thomas maintains that when courts apply those doctrines, the courts decide cases not before them. Building on the work of Professor Henry Monaghan, this article argues that those concerns …