Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Illusion Of Inclusion: The False Promise Of The New Governance Project For Content Moderation, Brenda Dvoskin

Fordham Law Review

Because private companies now control the most prominent communication platforms, the most pressing question in the field of content moderation is how to ensure that the governance of public discourse responds to public values. The prevailing approach, given that the state cannot regulate speech directly, is that state regulation can be substituted with audited self-regulation, broad stakeholder participation, and negotiated rulemaking. In this model, which this Article refers to as the “new governance model for content moderation,” companies include advocates as representatives of the public in their processes to govern online speech. Ideally, they negotiate policy goals and share responsibility …

Democratic Self-Defense, Claudia E. Haupt

Fordham Law Review

Four U.S. states recently took diametrically opposed approaches to address fundamental problems that their respective state legislatures identified in the online speech environment. While controversial legislation in Florida and Texas sought to limit the ability of platforms to remove users or content, New York and California passed laws ultimately aimed at curbing hate speech and other forms of abuse on platforms. In isolation, each of these legislative approaches raises significant First Amendment concerns, and all are likely insufficient to address the problems posed by online speech. But what if the impetus behind these laws were combined into a unified regulatory …

Properly Partitioning Prejudice: Analyzing Mixed Brady And Napue Claims, Patrick Scariano

Fordham Law Review

Due process affords criminal defendants the right to receive evidence possessed by the government that would aid in their defense. This right was codified in Brady v. Maryland. Brady’s lesser-known ancestor is Napue v. Illinois, which gave defendants the right to a new trial if the government knowingly offered perjured testimony in their original trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that these rights are critical to support verdicts worthy of confidence necessary to ensure due process.

Unfortunately, defendants victimized by misconduct are often affected by multiple violations of their rights. Courts have developed ways to examine …

The Pro-Defense Constitution, Zamir Ben-Dan

Utah Law Review

The pro-defense Constitution envisioned by the framers had its shortcomings. State power was unconstrained by it. More importantly, the Constitution’s protections only applied to white people; African Americans had no legal rights. The drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments attempted to change this reality in the field of criminal law by making the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Put another way, the pro-defense Constitution was to protect all persons charged with crimes in the United States. The author avers that this vision of the Constitution must be reclaimed.

Policing’S Free-Speech Problem, G. Alex Sinha

Utah Law Review

The central claim of this Article is that a significant share of typical policing activity is wildly and egregiously unconstitutional. More precisely, police regularly, predictably, and systematically violate the hardest, most settled core of free-speech law under the First Amendment. We have grown to tolerate these violations—we have not even noticed them!—because they are difficult to litigate. But they are inescapable. Having seen them, we cannot abide these violations without entirely overturning the modern understanding of free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

It is well-settled that, under the First Amendment, the government generally may not discriminate against (or in favor …

Race, The Academy, And The Constitution Of The War On Drugs, Bennett Capers, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

The war on drugs is widely viewed as a policy failure. Despite massive government intrusions on personal liberty, drug addiction, overdoses, and drug-related violence have only increased since the war was declared in 1971. David Pozen’s new book, The Constitution of the War on Drugs, reveals a constitutional failure as well. Pozen chronicles a host of constitutional arguments that American litigants deployed to protect a “right” to use drugs with surprising, if fleeting, success. Pozen asks what might have been, exploring why the courts backtracked and effectively removed the Constitution as a meaningful obstacle to drug prohibitions.

This Review …

Researching The U.S. Senate Presidential Nominee Confirmation Process, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

The beginning of 2025 has seen renewed public attention and emphasis on the constitutionally mandated U.S. Senate confirmation process. This stems from the beginning of the second Trump Administration as its nominees navigate this process. The presentation provides historical background on this process, demonstrates what nominees, Senate oversight committees, and the full Senate in administering this process and enables readers to find out how to access information resources documenting this process. The confirmation process continues throughout presidential administrations and may involve little public attention and controversy or acute public attention and controversy. The contrasting 2025 confirmation experiences of Secretary of …

Turning Over The Ballot: Direct Democracy And State-Level Change, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Phillip Ensler, Susan Lerner, Miriam Seifter

2024–2025 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Turning Over The Ballot: Direct Democracy And State-Level Change, Floersheimer Center For Constitutional Democracy, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Phillip Ensler, Susan Lerner, Miriam Seifter

2025 Event Invitations

Join Phillip Ensler ‘17 (Alabama State Representative), Susan Lerner (Executive Director, Common Cause-NY), and Miriam Seifter (Professor, Univ. of Wisconsin Law School) who, with Cardozo’s own Professor Wilfred Codrington, will discuss ballot measures, direct democracy, and effecting change at the state level. Registration is encouraged but not required for current Cardozo students.

A Constitutional Mandate To Adopt Avs, Kevin Frazier

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The rapid advancement of autonomous vehicle (“AV”) technology presents a unique opportunity to enhance public safety by drastically reducing road fatalities. Despite significant private sector investment and demonstrated improvements in AV performance, public adoption and integration remain hindered by regulatory gaps and societal skepticism. This Article argues that the federal government has an affirmative obligation, rooted in the doctrine of a right to effective government, to champion the adoption of technologies like AVs that meaningfully promote the general welfare.

Drawing on the Preamble’s mandate to advance the general welfare and lessons from the transition from the Articles of Confederation to …

On Constitutional Crises, Donald Roth

Faculty Work Comprehensive List

"Our government becomes stronger for the challenges that it overcomes, as the interplay of the branches gets better defined."

Posting about ­­­­­­­­the nature of American government from In All Things, an online hub that offers insight into maintaining and faithful and orthodox Reformed Christian worldview while fearlessly engaging in every aspect of contemporary life – until all is made new.

On Constitutional Crises

Trespass To Chattel And The Fourth Amendment, Will Baskin

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

Like an adolescent maturing into adulthood, Fourth Amendment search doctrine has gone through phases. Scholars may debate the underlying principles that have governed each phase, but they agree that two Supreme Court decisions dominate the doctrine as it stands today: Katz v. United States and United States v. Jones. The younger of these two rivals, Jones, has caused its share of consternation. Courts have struggled to consistently apply its trespass-based test, despite the test’s seemingly simple formulation. This Note considers the Jones test in the context of personal property, or chattel, making two arguments: first, careful adherence to common-law principles …

Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson

Pepperdine Law Review

In snap removal, an individual removes a civil action to federal district court from the courts of a state where one or more putative defendants are a citizen before any such putative defendant has been served with process. By removing before any forum-state defendants are served, the removal arguably eludes the forum-defendant rule, which prohibits removal based solely on the diversity or alienage jurisdiction statute if “any of the parties in interest properly . . . served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” For years, federal judges and legal academics have disputed …

An Examination Of The Standard Of Judgment For Court–Ordered Electroshock Therapy, Anna Irving

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights V The First Amendment, And The Erosion Of The Belief–Action Dichotomy, Elena Lacorte

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Medicaid Unwinding: Due Process Violations And Impacts In Florida, Emma Page

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Louis J. Capozzi Iii

Notre Dame Law Review

The major questions doctrine, which requires agencies claiming important powers to identify clear authority from Congress, is transforming administrative law. Breaking with recent practice, the doctrine prevents the executive branch from issuing laws addressing pressing, novel issues without Congress’s affirmative consent.

In response, scholars have generally criticized the doctrine and questioned its legitimacy. Critics have alleged that the doctrine was fabricated by the Supreme Court without proper justification, is incapable of principled application, frustrates the intent of past Congresses to delegate broad power to agencies, aggrandizes judicial power, and hinders desirable executive branch lawmaking.

This Article disagrees with those criticisms …

May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?, Benjamin B. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review

Conventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated …

When Religious Exercise And Private Rights Collide, Brent J. Nymeyer

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note proposes that the state action doctrine—where state statutory and common law, or the judicial finding of liability thereunder, is government burdening to the same extent that a criminal law or prosecution is government burdening—should extend to always allow religious exercise claims and defenses in disputes involving only private parties. Part I lays out the development of religious exercise jurisprudence under the federal and state systems and the current landscape of jurisdictions’ treatment of religious exercise claims and defenses in private disputes.

Part II proceeds in two sections: Section A presents representative cases from criminal law and relevant areas …

A Litany For Blessed Diversity, Emma De Ramón Acevedo, Marco Enríquez, Jordi Padilla-Delgado, Ammel Sharon

Popular Media

No abstract provided.