Legal History Commons^™

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

New Zealand Security Agencies’ Secrecy, Accountability, And Transparency In The Modern Era, Ben Amata

Secrecy and Society

New Zealand’s security agencies need to balance conflicting missions of secrecy, accountability, and transparency in conducting national security government operations. Citizens expect protection without violating their liberties and for security agencies to act effectively and legally. From public revelations about the agencies and government reform efforts, the agencies evolved from almost total secrecy to greater accountability and transparency since World War II. This study employs a historical methodology, which examines primary source documents to reveal the history of secret behavior and to reform the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Prenatal Personhood, State Duties, And Congress’S Abortion Power Under The Fourteenth Amendment, David R. Upham

Catholic University Law Review

Many antiabortion jurists have contended that by its original meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment not only (1) recognizes the personhood of prenatal human beings, but also (2) requires states to have and enforce the antiabortion laws necessary to the equal protection of these prenatal persons, and even (3) empowers Congress to pass remedial antiabortion laws where the state fail to protect such persons.

In this essay, I will contend that the Amendment does indeed recognize the personhood of prenatal human beings, but largely leaves with the states the authority to determine the scope of the protection to be afforded such persons. …

Prentiss Mellen, Maine's First Chief Justice: A Legal Biography, Ellyn C. Ballou

Maine Law Review

It is in the bosoms of his contemporaries of the profession, and of his clients and personal friends, that the memory of the lawyer is embalmed . . . . [Chief Justice Mellen's] life furnishes a striking illustration of the justness of the preceding remarks, since it was that of one almost exclusively conversant with the active practice of the law. Thus wrote Simon Greenleaf shortly after Prentiss Mellen's death. Greenleaf, perhaps due to the modesty of one in a similar position, was only partially correct. True, few today, even in the legal profession, recognize the name of Maine's first …

In Memoriam Donald Leroy Garbrecht, Edward S. Godfrey

Maine Law Review

The faculty of the reestablished University of Maine law school held its first meeting in Washington in May 1962, during the annual session of the American Law Institute. The first order of business included an interview with one Donald L. Garbrecht, who had been recommended to serve as assistant to the librarian, Dr. Arthur Pulling. After Don had successfully undergone an interview and we had voted—unanimously, for once—Dr. Pulling looked at us in the earnest way he had when he was enthusiastic about something and said, "He'll be fine!" His prophecy proved to be correct. It should be counted as …

A Peek Behind The Scenes Of Supreme Court Decision Making Concerning The Federal Ip System, Jonathan Band

Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series

In the 1970s and 80s, the Supreme Court decided three cases that continue to define the limits of the authority of the states within the federal intellectual property system: Goldstein v. California (1973); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Oil Co. (1974); and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989). The papers of the Supreme Court Justices that decided these cases show the Court as a human institution wrestling with this complex issue. This issue has assumed new importance as state legislatures have rushed to enact laws on the use of generative artificial intelligence to replicate the voice …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

The Misuse Of Ratification-Era Sources By Unitary Executive Theorists, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This symposium essay suggests that, given an ostensibly originalist Supreme Court, the future depends on getting the past right. The unitary executive theory is approaching its political and doctrinal zenith in 2025, at the very moment it is approaching an evidentiary crisis. This essay details that crisis: a subset of misuses and misrepresentations of sources in the unitary executive scholarship. This subset focuses on serious misrepresentations of the Ratifications debates.

The Ratification debates appropriately have become the primary source of evidence for original public meaning, the dominant theory of originalism. The Ratification debates have always been a significant problem for …

Historical Firearm Licensing And Permitting Laws, Robert J. Spitzer

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Democracy, History, And Washington And Lee, Christopher B. Seaman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

At Washington and Lee, it is customary for the new holder of an endowed professorship to deliver a public lecture called a chair talk to mark their installation. This is a lightly edited and footnoted version of Professor Seaman's chair talk on October 8, 2024, given as the new Robert E.R. Huntley Professor of Law.

“Freedom Lives Hence, And Banishment Is Here”: The Weaponization Of Immigration Law To Punish Political Dissidents, Ryan Scott

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note explores the long and bipartisan history of the United States government’s weaponization of the immigration system to control, exclude, and expel percieved political enemies. The near-unlimited power that the federal government has acrrued in immigration matters has been used since the Founders’ generation to purge the country of those whose ideas and speech are seen by the powers that be as threatening or subversive. This Note traces the arc of such efforts from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the explusion of activists under President Trump. The Note also examines attempts to force the courts to …

James Baldwin And What U.S. Governments Owe Every American, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This book review looks at the life, work and impact of James Baldwin, a famous writer and civil rights activist that was born one hundred (100) years ago. It does so, for one of the first times in the field of law, by examining Baldwin’s influence on the legal system. The book review carries out its work by identifying Baldwin’s impacts upon U.S. law: before, during and after his public service career. In the process, this book review describes how governments can build on Baldwin's writings and advocacy work.

Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted At Nuremberg, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

Conventional narratives tend to represent the post-World War II international criminal proceedings as a men’s project, thus obscuring the many women who participated, as lawyers, journalists, analysts, interpreters, witnesses, and defendants. Indeed, two women stood trial before Nuremberg Military Tribunals. This article examines the case of the only woman found not-guilty: Inge Viermetz, who had been an administrator at Lebensborn, the Nazi SS adoption and placement agency. The article outlines the prosecution’s child-taking case against Viermetz, as well as her successful gendered self-portrayal as a conventionally feminine caregiver. With references to Professor Megan A. Fairlie, at whose memorial symposium it …

The Law Of Heredity -- Whistelo, Whiteness And Whales, Walter J. Walsh

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article reveals the impact of an early New York case upon science and law, raising questions about heredity that spurred evidentiary progress from maternal imagination to visual resemblance, and later from blood groups to DNA paternity testing. In the Jeffersonian republic, a dark-skinned man was charged with reputedly fathering the infant daughter of a mixed-race woman. However, to most witnesses this light-skinned child appeared to be the offspring of a White man. The trial of Commissioners of the Alms-House, vs Alexander Whistelo, a Black man, being a Remarkable Case of Bastardy (1808) became a cause célèbre in both law …

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part: The Constitutionality Of Firearm Waiting Periods, F. Lee Francis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines the constitutionality of firearm waiting period laws through the lens of the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although such laws are frequently defended as prudent public safety measures, their validity turns not on legislative purpose but on constitutional principle, particularly as framed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Under those decisions, the scope of the Second Amendment is determined not by judicial balancing of contemporary interests, but by reference to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Article surveys that tradition and finds no …

The Wrongly Read Right: Insurrection And The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms, Aman Mcleod, Jacob M. Jones

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Several judges and scholars have interpreted the Second Amendment as creating a right to bear arms to facilitate armed resistance against the government whenever it threatens to impose tyranny. These arguments have been made in books, scholarly articles, and court decisions. Many of the proponents of the pro-armed insurrection interpretation of the Second Amendment root this point of view in the history of the right to bear arms in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This Article argues that the Second Amendment does not create a right to bear arms to resist government authority because such a right is inconsistent with several …

Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing The Right To Counsel For Indigent Parents In Juvenile Dependency Proceedings, Jake Toth

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Fairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.

This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines …

Big Business As Gun Control, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary, Bhav Ninder Singh

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Gun control increasingly bypasses direct legislative enactments by co-opting the commercial marketplace. Financial institutions and insurers often face regulatory pressures, frequently articulated through vague notions of “reputational risk,” to terminate or restrict services for lawful firearms businesses and advocacy groups. The debanking tactic, seen in initiatives such as Operation Choke Point, can deny essential financial products to firearm owners, merchants, and organizations, curtailing the practical exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Simultaneously, government agencies sometimes pursue warrantless data collection from bank records and merchant category codes, building profiles of lawful purchasers and eroding privacy and due-process norms.

Social media platforms compound …