- Even if troublesome for other reasons, discussion of nominees’ religious beliefs does not violate the Constitution’s Religious Test Clause [my post at Secular Right]
- I’m quoted toward the end of this report: Congress rather than courts likely to get ultimate say on defining “emoluments” [NPR with Peter Overby, audio and related article, earlier]
- Convention of the States? Federalist Society panel video with Thomas Brinkman, Jennifer Brunner, David Forte, Matt Huffman, Larry Obhof, Matthew Byrne [earlier on Article V conventions]
- Supreme Court opened — and should now close — “dual sovereignty” exception to rule against double jeopardy [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, 2008, has articles on the U.S. Constitution by David Mayer and on the rule of law by Norman Barry;
- Following big First Amendment win in Slants case Matal v. Tam, feds drop effort to void trademark of Washington Redskins [Ilya Shapiro, Eugene Volokh, earlier]
Posts Tagged ‘constitutional law’
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- Litigating the boundaries of religious liberty: Tunku Varadarajan interview/profile with Becket Fund’s Montse Alvarado [WSJ] And mark your calendar for Sept. 28, Cato’s inaugural day-long conference “The Future of the First Amendment” at which I’ll be on a panel on religious liberty;
- What Hamilton wrote: archive find casts further doubt on theory President isn’t “officer” subject to Emoluments Clause [Brianne Gorod, Take Care] Broad definition of emoluments in suit against Trump might trip up its own lead plaintiff, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal [Michael Stern] “There is nothing wrong with Justice Gorsuch speaking at the luncheon despite its venue.” [Steve Lubet on Trump-Hotel-as-speech-venue flap]
- Duties of celebration: Cato amicus urges SCOTUS to consolidate Arlene’s Florist with Masterpiece Cakeshop case [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald]
- Maryland gun ban unconstitutionally broad, argue Randy Barnett and Dave Kopel in Cato amicus [Shapiro, Kopel, and Matthew Larosiere] Restore rights to a rehabilitated felon? Sure, says Maryland, but not gun rights. Constitutional check [Shapiro]
- Federalist Society’s annual Supreme Court roundup speech for last term, by Miguel Estrada, is now online. Unfinished business: 10 certiorari petitions from last term SCOTUS justices should have granted [Mark Chenoweth, WLF] And don’t forget to mark your calendar for Cato’s Constitution Day Sept. 18;
- By 2019, constitutional law discussions at America’s top law schools were being conducted entirely in emoji [@tribelaw on Twitter on “First or Second Amendment, pick one” question of whether persons assembling for political protest have right to bear arms at the same time]
Judge Janice Brown on cy pres, cont’d
In the D.C. Circuit case of Keepseagle v. Perdue, mentioned in this space last month, Judge Janice Rogers Brown had some choice words regarding the constitutional status of class-action slush funds arising from the settlement of a suit against the federal government on behalf of Native Americans claiming discrimination against them by the Department of Agriculture:
$380,000,000 is, to use the late Senator Dirksen’s wry phrase, “real money.” That is what has been left on the table for private disbursement in this case. Perhaps one day, I will possess my colleagues’ schadenfreude toward the Executive Branch raiding hundreds-of-millions of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury, putting them into a slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled. But, that day is not today….
The Executive Branch may wish to favor certain interests on the taxpayer’s dime. It may wish to use the Judicial Branch’s enforcement of settlement agreements to avoid asking Congress for an appropriation. But the Constitution’s design gives the People’s elected representatives a means to thwart these “overgrown prerogatives.” . . . By limiting the “judicial Power” to resolving “Cases” and “Controversies,” . . . the Constitution ensures the Judicial Branch has “no influence over . . . the purse.” . . . Expenditures toward the fulfilment of public policy are integral to policymaking itself, and policymaking is left to the legislature. . . . In short, congressional control over the People’s purse is a structural limit on both the Executive and Judicial Branches.
Alas, the analysis came in a dissent. Mark Pulliam writes up the case at Liberty and Law.
Constitutional law roundup
- In name of suicide prevention, Oregon plans to use emergency one-sided hearsay proceedings to take away gun rights [Christian Britschgi, Reason]
- Past Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) readings of Emoluments Clause fall between extreme positions of CREW on the one hand and Trump White House on the other [Jane Chong/Lawfare, earlier]
- “Yes, Justice Thomas, the doctrine of regulatory takings is originalist” [James Burling, PLF] On the Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin (earlier), see also Robert Thomas at his Inverse Condemnation blog here, here, and here;
- Notwithstanding SCOTUS decision in Pavan v. Brown just four days before, Texas Supreme Court intends to take its time spelling out to litigants the implications of Obergefell for municipal employee benefits [Josh Blackman (plus more), Dale Carpenter on Pidgeon v. Turner] Why the Supreme Court is not going to snatch back Obergefell at this point [David Lat]
- Tariff-like barrier: California commercial fishing license fees are stacked against out-of-staters [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald, Cato]
- H.L. Mencken writes a constitution, 1937 [Sam Bray, Volokh]
Decline and fall of the Contracts Clause
George Leef reviews James W. Ely, Jr., book The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History. The clause, part of Article I, prescribes that no state shall pass any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”:
By the end of the Marshall era, the Contract Clause provided a firm defense against legislative interference for rights under public and private contracts. That would be its high-water mark. Soon state and federal courts began to whittle away at it….
The 1934 Supreme Court case of Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell is often cited as a turning point in the clause’s demotion, but the stripping away of protection against such laws has continued into more modern times.
Thus, state governments now have nearly unlimited power to tamper with contractual obligations and the reliability of a contract depends upon how judges might weigh several vague factors. Where the Founders wanted certainty, we now have a great deal of uncertainty.
Ely concludes by taking us into recent cases where the clause has been resurrected in efforts by public employee unions to prevent legislatures from whittling away any of their promised benefits through efforts to lower budget deficits.
These may sometimes prevent even laws aimed at reducing “unearned” future benefits arising from public-sector work that has not yet been performed. Even as some courts render such benefits provisions constitutionally binding on subsequent legislatures, they show little interest in reviving the clause’s old scope so as to bar legislation that impairs the obligation of existing private contracts.
June 28 roundup
- Unlike some other states, Massachusetts has not passed a law making it unlawful to encourage suicide; confidante nonetheless convicted of involuntary manslaughter over texts encouraging fellow teenager to do that [New York Times, NPR]
- New Emoluments Clause lawsuits against President Trump vary from previous pattern, still face uphill battle [Victor Li, ABA Journal; earlier]
- “Putting occupational licensing on the Maryland reform agenda” [my new Free State Notes]
- “Interpreting State Constitutions,” judges’ panel discussion with Judith French, Jeffrey Sutton, Steve Yarbrough, Matt Kemp [Ohio Federalist Society chapters]
- SCOTUS closes a door, and rightly so, in the long-running Chevron-Ecuador-Donziger saga [Michael Krauss]
- Green Bay fan sues Chicago Bears over “no opposing team gear at pregame warmups” rule [WDEZ, Howard Wasserman/Prawfs]
Floyd Abrams on Citizens United
Why do so many in the press despise Citizens United, a decision whose point is to protect First Amendment liberties? One factor may be that the decision undermines their own sector’s claims to specialness by making clear that press liberty is meant for everyone, not just for media professionals and their organizations. [Floyd Abrams, guest-blogging at Volokh]
“Can the police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer police questions?”
Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy sorts through the complications of a Fifth Circuit case that has arguable Fifth, Fourth, and First Amendment angles.
When Truman seized the steel mills
65 years ago this week President Harry Truman by executive order seized control of the U.S. steel industry, then facing a labor impasse. The Supreme Court didn’t let him get away with it, despite his lawyers’ claims that the emergency arising from the Korean War, then in progress, gave him inherent power to act in the national interest. The case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer was to set an outer bound on Presidential power, which continues to be felt in cases to this day. I’ve got a write-up at Cato at Liberty.
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
All-Cato edition:
- SEC’s use of in-house judges violates constitutional principle of independent judiciary [Thaya Brook Knight, Ilya Shapiro, Devin Watkins, and Ari Blask]
- Have you checked out the annual Cato Supreme Court Review on the 2015-16 term, available both in-print and free online? Among the contents: Roger Pilon on Scalia’s originalism; Andrew Trask on the class action case of Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo (and more); Steven Calabresi on originalism and liberty; Steven Eagle on wetlands law; Harvey Silverglate and Emma Quinn-Judge on McDonnell and honest-services-fraud prosecutions of state and local officials; and Glenn Reynolds looking ahead to this (2016-17) term;
- Federal agency can’t unilaterally rewrite unambiguous statutory provision [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison on Cato certiorari amicus in FLSA tip-pooling case of National Restaurant Association v. Department of Labor]
- “You Shouldn’t Be Criminally Liable If You Don’t Have a Guilty Mind” [Ilya Shapiro on Cato certiorari brief in mens rea case of Farha v. U.S.; related on mens rea, Orrin Hatch, Time]
- Court must resolve constitutionality of CFPB structure, especially now that DoJ itself agrees it’s unconstitutional [Thaya Brook Knight and Ilya Shapiro, more]
- In ineffective-assistance-of-counsel case that might hinge on whether drug defendant was bound to be convicted anyway, Court should not sidestep the historically significant phenomenon of jury nullification [Cato podcast with Tim Lynch on Lee v. U.S.; more on case from Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog on oral argument and from Lynch at The Hill]