Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Muddled State: California's Application Of Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence In People V. Dungo And People V. Lopez, Mark K. Hanasono

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

Crawford v. Washington revitalized the Confrontation Clause by addressing the admissibility of testimonial hearsay by declarants whom defendants never previously had the opportunity to cross-examine. Courts continue to review Confrontation Clause challenges in a variety of contexts. How should courts determine the admissibility of forensic analyses introduced through witnesses who were not personally involved with them?

Most recently in California, the state supreme court decided People v. Dungo and People v. Lopez, limiting Confrontation Clause protection to testimonial hearsay statements contained in forensic analyses, which were made (1) with formality, and (2) for the primary purpose of criminal prosecution. As …

What Is Really So Bad About A Different Rule Of Law: The Afghan Legal System Reanalyzed, Dana Cook-Milligan

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

"Rule of Law" is a principle that politicians often discuss to evaluate the stability and progressive nature of another state. From the Western point of view-where Rule of Law is most commonly discussed-Rule of Law is predicated on sovereign, supreme, predictable, and fair legal systems. Failure to satisfy this formulation suggests that a state lacks Rule of Law. Rule of Law's absence, in turn, evokes negative connotations and is often synonymous with a lack of democracy. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is war-torn, decentralized, and corrupt-but can it still have Rule of Law? Are these concepts mutually exclusive? Must Afghanistan's …

'Lonesome Road': Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Faculty Publications

American states and municipalities have so many minor traffic regulations that every time a driver gets behind the wheel of a car he or she is likely to commit multiple violations. The violation of any traffic regulation empowers police officers to stop the vehicle, ticket and, in some states, arrest the motorist. Police are physically unable to stop and ticket, let alone arrest, every motorist committing a traffic violation. Instead, police are vested with unlimited discretion when choosing which motorists to stop, warn, ticket, or arrest. So long as there is probable cause for a traffic violation, courts will not …

A Question Important To Investors (Whether They Realize It Or Not): Is Realization A Constitutional Requirement For Income Taxation?, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

This article considers whether realization continues to be a constitutional requirement for an accession to wealth to be included in the base of the federal income tax. Most commentators had thought that the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Eisner v. Macomber, which treated realization as central to the meaning of “taxes on incomes” in the Sixteenth Amendment, was deadwood, or close to it. In 2012, however, in his controlling opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts cited Macomber favorably on a point critical to the resolution of that case. If realization still has constitutional legs, …

Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …

Lafler And Frye: A New Constitutional Standard For Negotiation, Rishi Batra

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

The Sixth Amendment guarantees "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." In 1984 the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington established the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel that is a violation of this right. In a pair of decisions handed down in 2012, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Supreme Court extended the holding in Strickland to cover ineffective assistance by defense counsel in the plea-bargaining phase. Recognizing that pleas account for ninety-five percent of all criminal convictions, the court stated that "the negotiation …

Evaluating High School Students' Constitutional And Civic Literacy: A Case Study Of The Washington, D.C. Chapter Of The Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, Maryam Ahranjani, Caleb Medearis, Jeff Shook

Scholarly Works

The United States maintains a reputation as a vibrant, participatory democracy. Yet, paradoxically, formal civics education has essentially disappeared from America's public high schools, particularly urban public schools serving low-income and minority students. The Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, which is offered at almost zero cost to public schools and districts, developed as a response to the need for civics education in high schools and as a way to train future lawyers in public speaking, leadership, and counseling. To support the growth of the Marshall-Brennan project all over the country, the authors of this Essay came together to study the Marshall-Brennan …

Random, Suspicionless Searches Of Students' Belongings: A Legal, Empirical, And Normative Analysis, Jason P. Nance

University of Colorado Law Review

This Article provides a legal, empirical, and normative analysis of an intrusive search practice used by public school officials to prevent school crime: random, suspicionless searches of students' belongings. First, it argues that these searches are not permitted under the Fourth Amendment unless schools have particularized evidence of a substance abuse or weapons problem. Second, it provides a normative evaluation of strict security measures in schools, especially when they are applied disproportionately to minority students. Third, drawing on recent restricted data from the U.S. Department of Education's School Survey on Crime and Safety, this Article provides empirical findings that raise …

Byron White-Hero And Scholar: Reflections About Punishment, Political Speech, And Public Liability, Justice John Paul Stevens

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conversation With Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Misguided Patent Reform: The Questionable Constitutionality Of First-To-File, Andrew L. Sharp

University of Colorado Law Review

American cigarette warning labels are lackluster compared to others around the world. To address this inadequacy, the FDA created nine graphic-image cigarette warning labels that were scheduled to appear on all cigarette packages sold in the US beginning in 2012. However, before they debuted, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck the labels down in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, holding that they constituted compelled commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. This Note argues that the R.J. Reynolds decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence. Historically, the Supreme Court has applied limited First Amendment protection …

Sentencias Trascendentales Del Tribunal Supremo De Los Estados Unidos. Pasos Hacia La Igualdad Del Matrimonio Para Parejas Del Mismo Sexo, Julie A. Davies

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided two major cases on marriage equality – U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. These cases paved the way for the Court’s eventual decision in 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Constitution requires that states permit same-sex marriage. This article analyzes those precedents for an audience of Spanish-speaking legal professionals and academics seeking to understand the basis for the Court’s decisions.

Imagining A Same-Sex Marriage Decision Based On Dignity: Considering Human Experience In Constitutional Law, Danieli Evans

Articles

California’s Proposition 8 allows same sex couples to join through civil unions, which grant the legal benefits afforded to married couples but denies them the official label of “marriage.” The lower court eschewed the question of whether Proposition 8 burdens any fundamental right by concluding there is not even a rational basis (the minimum standard for the constitutionality of any law) for this law, as its sole effect is to deny same sex couples the designation of marriage.

We appreciate the lower court’s caution not to extend our fundamentalrights jurisprudence beyond precedent. However, we are positioned to elaborate fundamental constitutional …

The Confrontation Clause And Forensic Autopsy Reports-A "Testimonial", 74 La. L. Rev. 117 (2013), Marc Ginsberg

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the landscape of legal issues involved in determining whether the presence at trial of a surrogate pathologist, whose testimony refers to a forensic autopsy report prepared by the examining pathologist and provides the foundation for the admissibility of the forensic autopsy report, implicates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. This Article concludes that the practice of surrogate testimony and admission of the forensic autopsy report, well known and often required in criminal homicide prosecutions, implicates and violates the Confrontation Clause.

Waiving Goodbye To A Fundamental Right: Allocation Of Authority Between Attorneys And Clients And The Right To A Public Trial, 38 J. Legal Prof. 1 (2013), Alberto Bernabe

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Dignity Of Equality Legislation, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

In Congressional Power to Effect Sex Equality, Patricia Seith argues that legal and social science commentary on the ratification failure of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") does not properly account for the legislative gains achieved by the Economic Equity Act ("Equity Act"). In drawing attention to the Equity Act, Seith's account challenges common explanations of the source of women's equality gains, particularly the narratives offered by legal commentators who typically focus on the role of the Constitution and the courts. As Seith points out, the conventional account in legal history focuses on the effectuation of a "de facto ERA," …

Machine Speech, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?

"The Magna Carta Of Free Enterprise" Really?" , Daniel A. Crane

Articles

In U.S. v. Topco Associates, Inc., Justice Thurgood Marshall announced that "[a] ntitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise.", In The Antitrust Constitution, Thomas Nachbar takes seriously the idea that federal antitrust laws serve a constitutional function. He argues that, contrary to common assumptions, the antitrust laws cannot be understood merely as a form of economic utilitarianism. Rather, they serve the additional purpose of preventing "regulatory harm," the assertion of law-like control over the conduct of others outside the sphere of one's own property interests.

Miller V. Alabama And The (Past And) Future Of Juvenile Crime Regulation, Elizabeth S. Scott

Faculty Scholarship

This essay was the keynote address for a symposium on Miller v Alabama, the 2012 Supreme Court opinion holding unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment a statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide. The essay argues that Miller embodies a way of thinking about juvenile crime that has taken hold in the early 21st century – an approach that emphasizes the importance for legal policy of developmental differences between juveniles and adults. This emerging trend contrasts sharply with the regulatory approach of the 1990s when moral panics over juvenile crime fueled punitive law reforms …

Regulating Electricity Imports Into Rggi: Toward A Legal, Workable Solution, Shelley Welton, Michael Gerrard, Jason Munster

Faculty Scholarship

This white paper evaluates the legal workability and constitutionality of what is frequently considered the most feasible mechanism for RGGI to use in regulating imports: an obligation on RGGI “load serving entities” (LSEs) – those companies responsible for supplying electricity to end-use customers – to purchase allowances to account for the emissions associated with the electricity they sell that is imported. Ultimately, although there are many design complexities yet to be worked out, we find that an LSE-centered approach could present a viable pathway forward for RGGI states’ regulation of imports. It is likely to create long-term price signals about …