President/Executive Department Commons^™

Pardon Me Please: Evaluating Clemency For Marijuana Offenders, Mitchell F. Crusto

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Since 2012, several states and municipalities have decriminalized the non-violent use and possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana by adults. These criminal law reforms raise the issue of whether individuals who were convicted in the past should be exonerated retroactively by way of pardons or clemency. Consequently, many past marijuana offenders remain in state prisons for committing acts that are no longer deemed illegal in many states. Furthermore, these prisoners, as well as persons who were formerly accused or imprisoned, suffer from the stigma and negative collateral consequences of their alleged criminality. In response to these injustices, many governors …

Law School News: Is It Legal For Trump To Send Troops Into U.S. Cities? 10-9-2025, Edward Fitzpatrick

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos M. Vázquez

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

By definition, the immunity of a former President is not an immunity ratione personae, as this sort of immunity applies only to current officeholders. It is an immunity ratione materiae extending only to certain types of acts. The Court in Trump made clear that the immunity a former President enjoys is at least an immunity from judicial proceedings. It is for this reason that she is entitled to an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss the claim against her. The Court left unclear whether the President’s immunity is also an immunity from primary obligations or an …

Domestic Military Deployments After Trump V. United States, Chris Mirasola

William & Mary Law Review

The current legal regime governing domestic military deployments was, largely, born of the Civil War. While conflict was ongoing, Congress enacted what are now a pair of statutes criminalizing military interference with federal elections. And as a coda to Reconstruction, Congress criminalized using the military as a civilian law enforcement force. Over the past 160 years, successive Congresses and Presidents have steadily chipped away at these crucial criminal-law protections. In 2024, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States further undermined the limitations that remained.

In Trump, the Supreme Court held that Presidents enjoy, at minimum, a presumption …

Joinder, Not Jurisdiction: Toward A New Theory Of Standing, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article builds on an important development in the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence to propose a novel theory that would allow more meaningful access to federal courts while vindicating legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. In its recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court endorsed a theory of standing based on Article II, writing that litigation between private parties—even when explicitly authorized by Congress—can run afoul of the executive branch’s interest in “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” This Article II move has been justifiably criticized. But it is …

Volume 48 Masthead

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Keynote Address: Community Over Constitution, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay

Seattle University Law Review

In this keynote address, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay challenges the veneration of the U.S. Constitution by highlighting its origins in exclusion and its continued failure to protect marginalized communities. Drawing from her experience in civil legal aid and gender justice, she argues that the Constitution was drafted to consolidate power among white, wealthy men and continues to reflect that legacy through racial, gender, and class-based inequities. While acknowledging the significance of constitutional amendments and landmark cases, Mukhopadhyay emphasizes that meaningful change has always come from community-led action, not top-down reform. Additionally, Mukhopadhyay calls on lawyers and legal advocates to center community, practice …

The Lost Child: A Critique On Transracial Adoption Rhetoric, Hallie Conyers-Tucker

Seattle University Law Review

Transracial adoption in the United States reflects a deeply rooted history of colonialism, cultural assimilation, and racial hierarchy, masked by rhetoric focused on the “best interest of the child.” The author critiques that rhetoric and traces how adoption practices and policies, both domestic and international, have evolved to reinforce systemic inequities. Through historical analysis of the forced adoption of Native American, Black, and Asian children, it reveals how the best interest standard has been wielded not to protect children but to uphold political and racial ideologies. The author argues that the prevailing adoption framework relies on child-saving and color-blind narratives …

A Global Reconstruction: Black Internationalism And The Human Rights Regime, Britta Redwood

Seattle University Law Review

Black American advocates for civil, political, and economic rights have long taken an internationalist approach and fostered connections with international organizations and transnational movements. This engagement has also been a generative force and played role in shaping international law. Beginning in the early years of the twentieth century, Black intellectuals and leaders, spearheaded by the NAACP and the UNIA, focused on human rights as a means for addressing and repairing the harms wrought by slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. From the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, and the drafting of …

The Gap: Addressing The Missing Piece In HawaiʻI’S Anti-Discrimination Laws On Credit And Lending, Wendy Mun

Seattle University Law Review

This author addresses the significant gap in Hawaiʻi’s anti-discrimination laws, specifically the lack of explicit protections for LGBTQ+ individuals against credit and lending discrimination. Although federal laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and recent interpretations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) extend some protections, they remain vulnerable to shifting federal priorities and interpretations. The author explores how other states, particularly California and Washington, have enacted robust statutory protections that clearly prohibit credit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They argue that Hawaiʻi, despite its large LGBTQ+ population, must amend its credit protection laws to reflect …

The U.S. Drug Policy Hamster Wheel: A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Seattle’S New Drug Ordinance, Hallie Conyers-Tucker

Seattle University Law Review

The author critically examines Seattle’s new drug ordinance using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to reveal how legislative language influences the policy's actual effect. Although the ordinance claims to prioritize diversion and community health, the use of permissive language such as “may” and “shall” grants broad discretionary power to law enforcement and undermines the stated intent. The author situates the ordinance within a broader historical context, highlighting how drug policy in the United States has consistently been shaped by racialized and stigmatizing narratives. Additionally, the author argues that meaningful reform requires reframing the discourse around substance use to support public health …

Something Concrete: How Labor Advocates Can Best Respond To The Ambiguity Of Glacier Northwest, Ateş Serifsoy

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Glacier North-west, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174 (Glacier) marked a critical moment for workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the longstanding practice of Garmon preemption. Yet, initial fears of a significant rollback of workers’ rights, driven by sensational headlines, were met with an unexpectedly narrow Court opinion. This Comment examines Glacier’s implications for Gar-mon preemption and the right to strike. It offers the historical background of the doctrine of labor law preemption before Glacier; presents a detailed analysis of Glacier itself, including its …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Can The Law Protect My Craft? How Gaps In Copyright Of Knitting Patterns Symbolize A Greater Struggle For Protecting Traditionally Feminine Forms Of Intellectual Property, Kysa Walzer

Seattle University Law Review

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the application of intel-lectual property rights within the context of copyright protection of knit-ting patterns. The article will discuss the underutilization of copyright pro-tection for knitters and crafters and its larger impact upon craft and indus-try traditionally comprised of women. Part I introduces knitting patterns and a short history of copyright protections. Part II discusses the specific areas within knitting patterns and the knitting community which give rise to legal grey areas for copyright protection. Part III discusses the larger implications of copyright and intellectual property in spaces where women traditionally make …

A New Exclusionary Rule To Protect Bodily Integrity And Discourage Pretext Stops, Josephine Ross

Seattle University Law Review

The author proposes a novel state-level exclusionary rule to reduce racial profiling and protect bodily autonomy during police encounters. The current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence fails to deter pretextual stops and frisks because the exclusionary rule often turns on officer fault and "good faith," allowing racially motivated practices to go unchecked. As federal rollbacks on diversity and data collection hinder efforts to track racial bias, the author argues for a statutory evidentiary rule that automatically excludes drug evidence found during (1) traffic stops, (2) pat-downs for weapons, and (3) consent searches, regardless of an officer’s intent or the legality of the …

Navahine V. HawaiʻI Dept. Of Transportation: The Keiki Will Lead Us, Catherine Smith

Seattle University Law Review

The author analyzes the landmark case Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, which culminated in the world’s first constitutional climate settlement. Catherine Smith, serving as an expert for the youth plaintiffs, situates the case within Hawaiʻi’s legal tradition of prioritizing children’s rights and intergenerational equity. She explores the evolution of children’s constitutional protections, contrasting Hawaiʻi’s progressive jurisprudence with the dominant adult-centric legal framework on the mainland. She critiques four recurring analytical missteps in U.S. courts that marginalize children’s interests and highlights Hawaiʻi’s public trust doctrine and cultural values, such as the Aloha Spirit, as models for addressing climate-related harms. …

Constitutional Futurism As Pedagogy, Jeremiah Chin

Seattle University Law Review

Constitutional Law has transformed from a course on history to a discussion of current events. Cases like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reveal that the study of constitutional law is not a static, or even linear, discussion of constitutional text and history. Law is a shifting, changing enterprise that reflects social constructions of power, authority, and identity. How do we teach, learn, and understand constitutional law that is so laden with history, riddled with theories of consistency and adherence to precedent, but ultimately subject …

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellees, Ira P. Robbins

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

INTRODUCTION: The Executive Order at issue in these appeals targets a small and uniquely vulnerable minority of transgender women—those currently housed in federal women’s prisons—by commanding the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to transfer them immediately to men’s facilities. Amici file in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), to address two procedural arguments made by Defendants-Appellants (“the government”). First, Congress has not eliminated federal court jurisdiction to decide Plaintiffs’ challenge to the transfer provisions of the Executive Order. Second, the government overreads the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA); Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is not improper or premature under that statute’s exhaustion requirement because …

Guardrails For Discretionary Powers: A Case Comment On The State Of Tamil Nadu V The Governor Of Tamil Nadu And Another, Pranav Verma

National Law School Journal

This Case Comment argues that by prescribing timelines for the president and the governors to grant or withhold assent to bills in The State of Tamil Nadu v the Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided in April 2025, the Supreme Court did not exceed its constitutional role, as argued by some critics. Instead, it applied established administrative law principles—relevant considerations, natural justice, and absence of mala fides—to the specific power of granting or withholding assent to bills. These principles have been long used to guide the other powers of the president, the governors, and the speaker/chairman. The court thereby reinforced …

Necessary Justice: “Political” Trials And Modern Political Philosophy, Rob Howse

Cardozo Law Review

Donald Trump’s election to President of the United States for the second time in November 2024 marked the beginning of the end of a sustained effort to hold him accountable in court for conduct that many Americans viewed as criminal.[1] Trump received not only the majority of Electoral College votes but a decisive plurality of the popular vote as well.[2] At the time of the election, he had already been convicted of thirty-four felonies surrounding a complex fraud to hide the use of campaign funds for hush money to an adult film actor.[3] Prior to this conviction, the decisions of …