Constitutional Law Commons^™

Defending Juveniles Facing Life Without Parole In Michigan, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

In Graham v. Florida, the United State Supreme Court held that life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile offender for a non-homicide crime. This article discusses the challenges, under the Eighth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution, to the sentence of life without parole imposed on someone 17 years old or less.

The Third Time Is Not Always A Charm: The Troublesome Legacy Of A Dutch Art Dealer-The Limitation And Act Of State Defenses In Looted Art Cases, Bert Demarsin

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking From The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Lessons In Ensuring Presidential Continuity, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Although some have criticized the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for leaving gaps in America’s provisions for addressing presidential succession and inability, such complaints are misguided. The Amendment represented a major step forward by providing sensible and workable procedures to remedy some of the most glaring problems the nation faced. Its architects recognized the remaining gaps but realized that advancing a more comprehensive measure would preclude any progress. Nonetheless, remaining gaps present an unacceptable risk that the United States will find itself without a functioning President whose exercise of presidential powers and duties is seen as legitimate. What …

Deconstructing Transnationalism: Conceptualizing Metanationalism As A Putative Model Of Evolving Jurisprudence, Paul Enriquez

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article builds upon Philip C. Jessup's revolutionary scholarship to pave new pathways for interdisciplinary research and expand the normative constitutional framework of universal human problems. To that end, this Article ties American constitutional theory to the new era of international globalization and provides context that facilitates the discussion of racial and ethnic diversity in education from a domestic and international perspective. By arguing for compelling treatment of diversity in elementary and secondary learning institutions, this Article introduces a new theory of constitutional interpretation vis-&-vis international law. This theory, called metanationalism, rejects Harold Koh's theory of transnationalism and demonstrates that …

Forgive Me, Founding Fathers For I Have Sinned, Carolyn A. Pytynia

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the authority to make the law of the land and, in turn, preempt state law that is incompatible with the federal government's legislative and treaty making efforts. In addition, other provisions of the Constitution authorize the federal government to participate in matters of foreign affairs, and the Supreme Court has found this authority to be exclusive to the federal government in a number of cases. However, the Constitution is silent on the issue of when federal preemption of state law is appropriate when states seek to legislate in matters …

One New President, One New Patriarch, And A Generous Disregard For The Constitution:, Robert C. Blitt

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The government of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC)--the country's predominant religious group--recently underwent back-to-back changes in each institution's respective leadership. This coincidence of timing affords a unique opportunity to reassess the status of constitutional secularism and church-state relations in the Russian Federation. Following a discussion of the presidential and patriarchal elections that occurred between March 2008 and January 2009, the Article surveys recent developments in Russia as they relate to the nation's constitutional obligations. In the face of this analysis, the Article argues that the government and the ROC alike continue to willfully undermine the constitutional principles of …

Iqbal And Supervisory Immunity, Kit Kinports

Faculty Scholarship

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal courts generally acknowledged that high-ranking government officials could be held liable for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates, though they differed on the appropriate standard of supervisory liability. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court called this case law into question, holding that constitutional tort liability hinges on proof that each defendant, “through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” The Court’s cursory treatment of this issue, without the benefit of briefing or oral argument, was based entirely on the misguided assumption that the doctrine of …

The Supreme Court's Legislative Agenda To Free Government From Accountability For Constitutional Deprivations, Gary S. Gildin

Faculty Scholarship

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard of factual particularity a plaintiff must meet to satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) that a complaint plead a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court made clear that the Twombly pleading standard extended to civil actions seeking redress for deprivation of constitutional rights in particular, and universally to all Complaints filed in federal court. Commentators have debated whether after Iqbal, victims of constitutional wrongdoing will be able to …

The Strange Origins Of The Constitutional Right Of Association, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

Although much has been written about the freedom of association and its ongoing importance to American constitutionalism, much recent scholarship mistakenly relies on a truncated history that begins with Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the case that divided constitutional association into intimate and expressive components. Roberts’s doctrinal framework has been rightly criticized. However, neither the right of association nor all of its doctrinal problems start there. The Supreme Court’s foray into the constitutional right of association began a generation earlier with NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

This article offers a new …

The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part I: “Privileges And Immunities” As An Antebellum Term Of Art, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

Historical accounts of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment generally assume that John Bingham based the text on Article IV of the original Constitution and that Bingham, like other Reconstruction Republicans, viewed Justice Washington’s opinion in Corfield v. Coryell as the definitive statement of the meaning of Article IV. According to this view, Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse Cases failed to follow both framers’ intent and obvious textual meaning when he distinguished Section One’s privileges or immunities from Article IV’s privileges and immunities.

A close analysis of antebellum law, however, suggests that Justice Miller’s …

Child Custody: Don't Worry, A Bet Din Can Get It Right, Jeffrey Haberman

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note aims to explore the reasoning behind the state's reluctance to accept arbitration, including that of the bet din, as a means of resolving child custody disputes. The Note highlights the advantages of arbitration, both in general and when used to determine child custody. The Note examines the arguments proffered by the courts to justify the view that they, and not outside arbitrators, best resolve child custody battles. This Note argues that when two parties agree to arbitrate their divorce settlement before a bet din, the award should be given the same deference as a bet din's resolution of …

Isu-Isu Pemelukan Islam Menurut Undang-Undang Negara Brunei Darussalam., Muhammad Bahrin Haji Alias

Student Works (2010-2019)

The number of conversion to Islam cases in Brunei Darussalam has arisen yearly. However, due to incompetency or legal infrastructure, any issue relating to the conversion cases, could not be handled and administered efficiently. Such weakness in legal aspect has affected the court‟s reputation and sometimes conflicts especially Syariah Court to discharge their duty effectively. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify and discuss to what extent current legal structures able resolve cases relating to conversion to Islam. To achieve this, the research is enhanced by the library research and field study in order to obtain relevant data. …

The Continuity Of Statutory And Constitutional Interpretation: An Essay For Phil Frickey, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay seeks to honor Phil by exploring the contributions of his Legal Process approach to a problem near and dear to his heart: the uses and legitimacy of canons of statutory construction. I focus, as Phil did in his most recent work, on the canon of constitutional avoidance—that is, the rule that courts should construe statutes to avoid significant ―doubt as to their constitutionality.

This Essay largely supports Phil‘s defense of the avoidance canon, but links that defense to another set of canons that Phil has criticized: the various clear statement rules of statutory construction that Phil and Bill …

State Sovereign Immunity And The Roberts Court, Stephen I. Vladeck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The 9/11 Commission And The White House: Issues Of Executive Privilege And Separation Of Powers, Daniel Marcus

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Is Ashcroft V. Iqbal The Death (Finally) Of The “Historical Test” For Interpreting The Seventh Amendment?, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

There is the possibility that the recent Supreme Court decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal finally will be the necessary impetus to revisit one of the more bizarre but enduring canards of American jurisprudence -- the way we interpret the Seventh Amendment's preservation of a right to a jury trial in federal civil litigation. The Seventh Amendment provides that "[i]n suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." To this day, the way we apply the Seventh Amendment-in other words, what we interpret to be the constitutional intent and mandate of our Founders-is to postulate …

Prudentialism In Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

At least two kinds of prudential argument have been identified in the literature on constitutional interpretation: court-centered prudentialism and system-centered prudentialism. Commentators often characterize court-centered prudentialism as animated by concern over the Supreme Court’s preservation of its public legitimacy, which can be undermined when the Justices decide controversial questions in ways that cause backlash. By contrast, system-centered prudentialism asks not only what judicial decision is best for the Court’s effectiveness, but also what response is best for the constitutional system as a whole when the Court’s legitimacy is not at stake.

The Court’s recent decision in McDonald v. City of …

'Struck' By Stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg On Pregnancy Discrimination As Sex Discrimination, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This is an attempt at recovery. This Essay hopes to call attention to then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg's merits brief in Struck v. Secretary of Defense. The brief has been under appreciated in part because the Supreme Court declined to decide the case. But anyone seeking to understand the origins and nature of Justice Ginsburg's views on sex discrimination would be well advised to read this brief. So would anyone interested in reimagining the bounds of constitutional possibility in the realm of gender equality.

A Coase Theorem For Constitutional Theory, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

There is much to admire about Barry Friedman’s new book, The Will of the People. Explaining how the institution of judicial review was made safe for democracy in America, Friedman’s story is extensively researched, beautifully written, scrupulously nonpartisan about the modern Court, and frequently humorous. What is more, his primary claim - that the Supreme Court of the United States is very much a democratic institution because judicial review always has been responsive to public opinion - is, to a large extent, convincing. I have taught The Will of the People in my first-year constitutional law course, and I plan …

In Search Of "Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism", Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This article is a response to Professor Jed Shugerman’s Economic Crisis and the Rise of Judicial Elections and Judicial Review, HARVARD LAW REVIEW (2010). Professor Shugerman argues that the widespread adoption of judicial elections in the 1850’s and the embrace by the first generation of elected judges of countermajoritarian rationales for judicial review helped to effect a transition from the active, industry-building state of the early nineteenth century to the "laissez-faire constitutionalism" of the Lochner era. This response argues that Professor Shugerman overstates the causal relationship between the elected judiciary’s robust constitutional defense of "vested rights" and the iconic, if …