Constitutionalising An Overlapping Consensus: The Ecj And The Emergence Of A Coordinate Constitutional Order,
2010
Columbia Law School
Constitutionalising An Overlapping Consensus: The Ecj And The Emergence Of A Coordinate Constitutional Order, Charles F. Sabel, Oliver H. Gerstenberg
Faculty Scholarship
The European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) jurisprudence of fundamental rights in cases such as Schmidberger and Omega extends the court's jurisdiction in ways that compete with that of Member States in matters of visceral concern. And just as the Member States require a guarantee that the ECJ respect fundamental rights rooted in national tradition, so the ECJ insists that international organisations respect rights constitutive of the EU. The demand of such guarantees reproduces between the ECJ and the international order the kinds of conflicting jurisdictional claims that have shadowed the relation between the ECJ and the courts of the Member …
The Unsettling ‘Well-Settled’ Law Of Freedom Of Association,
2010
Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
The Unsettling ‘Well-Settled’ Law Of Freedom Of Association, John D. Inazu
Scholarship@WashULaw
This article argues that the Supreme Court’s categories of expressive and intimate association first announced in its 1984 decision, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, are neither well-settled nor defensible. These indefensible categories matter deeply to groups that have sought to maintain an unpopular composition and message in the face of antidiscrimination laws. These groups have been denied associational protections. They have been forced to change their composition - and therefore their message. They no longer exist in the form they once held and desired to maintain.
The Roberts categories of intimate and expressive association are at least partly to blame. …
The Strange Origins Of The Constitutional Right Of Association,
2010
Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
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 Voting Rights Act’S Secret Weapon: Pocket Trigger Litigation And Dynamic Preclearance,
2010
Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
The Voting Rights Act’S Secret Weapon: Pocket Trigger Litigation And Dynamic Preclearance, Travis Crum
Scholarship@WashULaw
Following NAMUDNO, the search is on for a way to save section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This Note offers a solution through an examination of the VRA’s most obscure provision: section 3. Commonly called the bail-in mechanism or the pocket trigger, section 3 authorizes federal courts to place states and political subdivisions that have violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments under preclearance. This Note makes a two-part argument. First, the pocket trigger should be used to alleviate the NAMUDNO Court’s anxiety over the coverage formula’s differential treatment of the states. The Justice Department and civil rights groups …
Ensuring The Ethical Representation Of Clients In The Face Of Excessive Caseloads,
2010
Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
Ensuring The Ethical Representation Of Clients In The Face Of Excessive Caseloads, Peter A. Joy
Scholarship@WashULaw
The right of one charged with [a] crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impar-tial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with [a] crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.
You can't give me too many cases, too many clients, …
Introduction To The South Dakota Law Review's 2010 Symposium Issue,
2010
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Introduction To The South Dakota Law Review's 2010 Symposium Issue, Marci A. Hamilton
Articles
No abstract provided.
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court,
2010
Duke Law School
All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …
State Action And Corporate Human Rights Liability,
2010
Duke Law School
State Action And Corporate Human Rights Liability, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
This essay considers the requirement of state action in suits brought against private corporations under the Alien Tort Statute. It argues that, in addressing this requirement, courts have erred in applying the state action jurisprudence developed under the domestic civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also argues that, even if it were appropriate to borrow in this manner from the Section 1983 cases, such borrowing would not support the allowance of aiding and abetting liability against corporations, and that this liability is also problematic on a number of other grounds.
On Not Being “Not An Originalist”,
2010
Duke Law School
On Not Being “Not An Originalist”, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Confrontation Clause And The Hearsay Rule: What Hearsay Exceptions Are Testimonial?,
2010
Duke Law School
The Confrontation Clause And The Hearsay Rule: What Hearsay Exceptions Are Testimonial?, Paul W. Grimm, Jerome E. Deise, John R. Grimm
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Strange Origins Of The Constitutional Right Of Association,
2010
Duke Law School
The Strange Origins Of The Constitutional Right Of Association, John D. Inazu
Faculty Scholarship
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 United States And Human Rights Treaties: Race Relations, The Cold War, And Constitutionalism,
2010
Duke Law School
The United States And Human Rights Treaties: Race Relations, The Cold War, And Constitutionalism, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
The United States prides itself on being a champion of human rights and pressures other countries to improve their human rights practices, and yet appears less willing than other nations to embrace international human rights treaties. Many commentators attribute this phenomenon to the particular historical context that existed in the late 1940s and early 1950s when human rights treaties were first being developed. These commentators especially emphasize the race relations of the time, noting that some conservatives resisted the developing human rights regime because they saw it as an effort by the federal government to extend its authority to address …
Clear Statement Rules And Executive War Powers,
2010
Duke Law School
Clear Statement Rules And Executive War Powers, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
This article is based on a presentation at the Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium on Law and Public Policy that explored the theme of separation of powers in American constitutionalism.
The scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are understandably reluctant to issue constitutional rulings that might deprive the federal government as a whole of the flexibility needed to respond to crises. As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds. There have been both liberal and conservative …
The Forgotten Freedom Of Assembly,
2010
Duke Law School
The Forgotten Freedom Of Assembly, John D. Inazu
Faculty Scholarship
The freedom of assembly has been at the heart of some of the most important social movements in American history: antebellum abolitionism, women's suffrage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the labor movement in the Progressive Era and after the New Deal, and the civil rights movement. Claims of assembly stood against the ideological tyranny that exploded during the first Red Scare in the years surrounding the First World War and the second Red Scare of 1950s McCarthyism. Abraham Lincoln once called 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' part of 'the Constitutional substitute for revolution'. In 1939, the …
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?,
2010
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law
Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey D. Kahn
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a “prior substantial connection” to the United States.
I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …
Federal Governmental Power: Preemption From The October 2008 Term (Twenty-First Annual Supreme Court Review & Selected Excerpts: Practicing Law Institutes Twenty-Sixth Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Program), Eileen Kaufman
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence - October 2008 Term,
2010
Touro Law Center
Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence - October 2008 Term, Richard Klein
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
The Death Of Suspicion,
2010
Touro Law Center
The Death Of Suspicion, Fabio Arcila Jr.
Scholarly Works
This article argues that neither the presumptive warrant requirement nor the presumptive suspicion requirement are correct. Though representative of the common law, they do not reflect the totality of our historic experience, which includes civil search practices. More importantly, modern developments - such as urban life and technological advancements, the rise of the regulatory state, and security concerns post-9/11 - have sufficiently changed circumstances so that these rules are not just unworkable now, they are demonstrably wrong. Worst of all, adhering to them has prevented us from formulating a more coherent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. A new paradigm confronts us, in …
Miranda, Dickerson, And Jewish Legal Theory: The Constitutional Rule In A Comparative Analytical Framework,
2010
Touro Law Center
Miranda, Dickerson, And Jewish Legal Theory: The Constitutional Rule In A Comparative Analytical Framework, Samuel J. Levine
Scholarly Works
In this Essay, Professor Levine briefly explores Dickerson v. United States, the important 2000 decision in which a divided United States Supreme Court held that the standard established in Miranda v. Arizona continues to govern the admissibility of confessions, notwithstanding a federal statute enacted subsequent to Miranda that provided an alternative standard. Levine addresses broader theoretical implications of the approaches adopted by the majority and dissenting opinions in Dickerson. Drawing a parallel to the interpretation of the Torah in Jewish legal theory, he proposes a comparative framework for analyzing the division between the majority and dissent over the concept and …
Untold Stories Of Goldman V. Weinberger: Religious Freedom Confronts Military Uniformity,
2010
Touro Law Center
Untold Stories Of Goldman V. Weinberger: Religious Freedom Confronts Military Uniformity, Samuel J. Levine
Scholarly Works
In 1986, the United States Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision ruling that Air Force regulations prohibiting Simcha Goldman from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform did not violate Goldman’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Court’s majority opinion, which accepted the government’s assertion that allowing Goldman to wear a yarmulke would unduly upset important military interests, drew unusually harsh responses from both dissenting justices and legal scholars. Yet, upon closer examination, perhaps what stands out most about the events surrounding the Goldman decision is the untold story of the case, which differs in significant …
