Constitutional Law Commons^™

Free Speech For Judges And Due Process For Litigants: The Elimination Of First And Fourteenth Amendment Mutual Exclusivity In Siefert V. Alexander, 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 333 (2012), Margaret Mares

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Affirmative Defense In The Digital Workplace , Daniel B. Garrie

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

From 2009 to 2011, there were more than 30,000 sexual harassment claims filed in the United States. The ubiquitous availability of digital technology devices has facilitated many instances of sexual harassment. Such sexual harassment occurs through unprovoked and offensive e-mails, messages posted on electronic bulletin boards, and other means available on the Internet. To date, courts remain silent on this issue. Should this type of sexual harassment be treated differently from physical sexual harassment? The surprising answer is yes. This Article suggests a new judicial framework for addressing sexual harassment perpetrated through digital communications. This framework accounts for the real-world …

The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …

Gingrich, Desegregation, And Judicial Supremacy, Joel Alicea

Scholarly Articles

Those who oppose judicial supremacy follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln himself.

Taking Confrontation Seriously Does Crawford Mean That Confessions Must Be Crossexamined, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity: Protecting All But The Plainly Incompetent (And Maybe Some Of Them, Too), Susan Bendlin

Faculty Scholarship

Public officials can be more certain than ever before that qualified immunity will shield them from suits for money damages even if their actions violate the constitutional rights of another. In the October 2011 Term the Supreme Court granted qualified immunity to government officials in four significant cases and denied it to none. Troublesome aspects of the Supreme Court’s current approach include (1) the failure to clarify important Constitutional questions; and (2) the blurring of the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity for all practical purposes by assuring state officials that they can be certain of the shield from liability. …

Kiss The Book...You're President...: "So Help Me God" And Kissing The Book In The Presidential Oath Of Office, Frederick B. Jonassen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constructing The Other: U.S. Muslims, Anti-Sharia Law, And The Constitutional Consequences Of Volatile Intercultural Rhetoric, Carlo A. Pedrioli

Faculty Scholarship

Recently, legislators have proposed, discussed, and passed various laws that aimed to limit the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia (a branch of Islamic law) in state court systems. Because it became law, one proposed state constitutional amendment that rhetorically linked Sharia to foreign and international law is of particular note. In the 2010 midterm elections, Oklahoma passed State Question 755 (SQ 755), a constitutional amendment that aimed to place restrictions on the use of foreign law, international law, and Sharia in Oklahoma courts. Laws like Oklahoma’s State Question 755 are problematic for a variety of reasons. One …

The Coordination Conundrum, Catherine A. Hardee

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Souter's oft-repeated quote aptly summarizes the function of strict standards of review in constitutional jurisprudence to protect unpopular speech from restrictions based on content-laden value judgments. While strict standards have their advantages, commentators have found fault with their rigidity and have questioned whether any decision-making process can, or should, be free of pragmatic considerations. This doctrinal discussion has been reinvigorated by two recent United States Supreme Court opinions. At the root of both cases was the Court's reliance on the distinction between coordinated and independent speech. This Article examines the validity of this divide and challenges the foundation upon …

Whistleblowing And Freedom Of Conscience: Towards A New Legal Analysis, Richard Haigh, Peter Bowal

Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy

Most of us have an instinctive understanding of what “whistleblowing” is: the act of alerting the public to scandal, danger, malpractice, corruption or other immoral or unethical behaviour. For a long time, whistleblowers were treated poorly – today, they are now acknowledged, and sometimes even admired, but there is still some way to go. We believe that a strongly developed and distinct freedom of conscience, as expressed in s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, could go some way towards achieving that goal. In law, however, conscience is often treated as inseparable from religion, without any meaningful …

Constitutional Cases And The Four Cardinal Virtues, R. George Wright

Cleveland State Law Review

In addressing constitutional cases, judges face no shortage of legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies upon which to draw. In those cases, the challenge is assumed to be to identify and apply the most relevant such legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies. An accompanying judicial opinion tries to articulate this process, partly to legitimize the outcome, partly to provide guidance, and perhaps partly for purposes of civic education and inspiration. This Article recommends a somewhat different approach to constitutional adjudication. Specifically, this Article recommends supplementing the above standard forms of constitutional adjudication with appropriate and legitimate attention to …

The Constitutional Foundation For Federal Medical Liability Reform, Mark A. Behrens, Cary Silverman

Journal of Health Care Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

United States V. Stevens: Win, Loss, Or Draw For Animals?, David N. Cassuto

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Robert J. Stevens, proprietor of “Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. §48, a law criminalizing visual or auditory depictions of animals being “intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if such conduct violated federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession [of such materials]” takes place.” The law aimed principally at makers and distributors of “crush videos” wherein women wearing high heels and depicted from the waist down, grind small animals to death. However, the language of 18 U.S.C. §48 extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law …

The Constitutionality Of Citizen Suit Provisions In Federal Environmental Statutes, Jeffrey G. Miller

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s decisions under the pollution control statutes administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reach startlingly anti-environmental results, but they are explained more by the Court’s overwhelming hostility toward the private enforcement of statutes, rather than an anti-environmental bias. Adding insult to injury, in one of the rare victories for private environmental plaintiffs in those decisions, Justice Kennedy queried whether citizen suits intrude on the President’s Article II executive power and violate the separation of power principles. While other Justices have raised the same concern, Justice Kennedy’s invitation is particularly significant because he is a swing vote in …

The Fourth Amendment, Ethan Payne

A with Honors Projects

This projects explains the fourth amendment using skits and a PowerPoint presentation.

The Health Care Cases And The New Meaning Of Commandeering, Bradley W. Joondeph

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Health Care Cases to sustain the central provisions of the Affordable Care Act (or ACA) was hugely important in several ways. Most commentators have focused on the Court’s upholding of the ACA’s minimum coverage provision. But the Court’s Medicaid holding—that the ACA coerced (and thus commandeered) the states by making their preexisting Medicaid funds contingent on the states’ expanding their programs—may actually be more significant as a matter of constitutional law.

The basic thesis of this article is that, in finding the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provisions coercive, the Court has re-conceptualized what constitutes a …

Surviving The Commerce Clause: How Maryland Can Square Its Renewable Energy Laws With The Federal Constitution, Anne Havemann

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chopping Down The Rainforest: Finding A Solution To The "Amazon Problem", Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Current economic conditions in the United States have led to a dramatic decrease in state tax revenue. Without these funds, states will be unable to support important public services, and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the public and private sectors are at risk of being cut, as states work to close $103 billion in budget gaps. Accomplishing that will involve overcoming many hurdles, such as the unpopularity of raising taxes during times of economic trouble, but one largely untapped source could provide a significant amount of income to states. States currently lose around $23 billion annually in uncollected use …

The Death Penalty And The Mentally Ill: A Selected And Annotated Bibliography, Jean Mattimoe

Articles

The United States Supreme Court over the last decade has selectively whittled away at the scope and availability of the death penalty by exempting certain groups from execution under the Eighth Amendment. In 2002 the court ruled that executing mentally retarded criminals violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In 2005 the court ruled that the Constitution forbids the execution of individuals who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes. Currently there is an active debate on whether to extend the categorical exemptions created by the Court to the mentally ill. At the forefront …

Forfeitures Revisited: Bringing Principle To Practice In Federal Court, David Pimentel

Articles

No abstract provided.