Commentaries

Timbs v. Indiana: The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture When Used by States

Posted on April 19th, 2019

Kris Fernandez In Timbs v. Indiana, Petitioner Tyson Timbs asks the Supreme Court to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment against the states, providing extra protection for individuals against fines and forfeiture that are “grossly disproportionate” to the harm caused. The decision to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause and the guidelines for Continue Reading »

Racing on Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process to Challenge Tracking in Schools

Posted on April 19th, 2019

Katarina Wong Tracking is a widespread educational practice where secondary schools divide students into different classes or “tracks” based on their previous achievements and perceived abilities. Tracking produces different levels of classes, from low ability to high ability, based on the theory that students learn better when grouped with others at their own level. However, Continue Reading »

Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, and Wedding Cakes: A Commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Posted on April 26th, 2018

By: Andrew Jensen Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom Continue Reading »

Patchak v. Zinke, Separation of Powers, and the Pitfalls of Form over Substance

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Michael Fisher Mr. Patchak was a concerned citizen with standing to bring a suit against the federal government. A previous Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, made it clear that Mr. Patchak would win his case. Congress, however, did not want him to do so. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Gun Lake Act, which effectively Continue Reading »

Third Circuit Confusion: NCAA v. Christie and an Opportunity to Defend Federalism

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Zachary Buckheit NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The Continue Reading »

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Chris Smith In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are Continue Reading »

Carpenter v. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute a Search Under the Fourth Amendment?

Posted on March 14th, 2018

By: Douglas Harris In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of a suspect’s cell site location information (“CSLI”) during an ongoing criminal investigation is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus requires a showing of probable cause to obtain a warrant. This opinion will have future consequences Continue Reading »

Preserving the ‘Jewel of their Souls’: How North Carolina’s Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes

Posted on February 6th, 2018

By: Nicholas McGuire In State v. Bishop, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s cyber-bullying statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Cyber-bullying, bullying that occurs through electronic technology, has become more prevalent in recent years as much of adolescent life shifts to social media Continue Reading »

Chance to Change: Jennings v. Rodriguez as a Chance to Bring Due Process to a Broken Detention System

Posted on January 19th, 2018

By: Joe Bianco Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention Continue Reading »

National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.: A Test of Might

Posted on December 18th, 2017

By: Elizabeth Storey National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA pits two co-equal federal statutes head-to-head. The Federal Arbitration Act mandates that all arbitration clauses be enforced. The National Labor Relations Act grants employees the right to act collectively to bring claims against employers. The Supreme Court must decide whether arbitration clauses in employment contracts, Continue Reading »

Commentaries

Timbs v. Indiana: The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture When Used by States

Posted on April 19th, 2019

Kris Fernandez In Timbs v. Indiana, Petitioner Tyson Timbs asks the Supreme Court to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment against the states, providing extra protection for individuals against fines and forfeiture that are “grossly disproportionate” to the harm caused. The decision to incorporate the Excessive Fines Clause and the guidelines for Continue Reading »

Racing on Two Different Tracks: Using Substantive Due Process to Challenge Tracking in Schools

Posted on April 19th, 2019

Katarina Wong Tracking is a widespread educational practice where secondary schools divide students into different classes or “tracks” based on their previous achievements and perceived abilities. Tracking produces different levels of classes, from low ability to high ability, based on the theory that students learn better when grouped with others at their own level. However, Continue Reading »

Compelled Speech, Expressive Conduct, and Wedding Cakes: A Commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Posted on April 26th, 2018

By: Andrew Jensen Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the most important same-sex rights case since Obergefell v. Hodges and will determine if businesses and individuals have a First Amendment right to refuse serving gay weddings against their conscience. In this case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom Continue Reading »

Patchak v. Zinke, Separation of Powers, and the Pitfalls of Form over Substance

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Michael Fisher Mr. Patchak was a concerned citizen with standing to bring a suit against the federal government. A previous Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar, made it clear that Mr. Patchak would win his case. Congress, however, did not want him to do so. Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Gun Lake Act, which effectively Continue Reading »

Third Circuit Confusion: NCAA v. Christie and an Opportunity to Defend Federalism

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Zachary Buckheit NCAA v. Christie will determine whether a federal statute that prevents a state legislature from repealing a previously enacted state law violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 2014, New Jersey passed a state law repealing state prohibitions against sports wagering in Atlantic City. Five sports leagues sued New Jersey in federal court. The Continue Reading »

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute: How Can States Maintain Their Voter Rolls?

Posted on March 22nd, 2018

By: Chris Smith In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ohio’s Supplemental Process for maintaining its voter rolls violates the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). The Court’s opinion will shape the landscape of voting rights, as many states are Continue Reading »

Carpenter v. United States: How Many Cell Phone Location Points Constitute a Search Under the Fourth Amendment?

Posted on March 14th, 2018

By: Douglas Harris In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government’s acquisition of a suspect’s cell site location information (“CSLI”) during an ongoing criminal investigation is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus requires a showing of probable cause to obtain a warrant. This opinion will have future consequences Continue Reading »

Preserving the ‘Jewel of their Souls’: How North Carolina’s Common Law Could Save Cyber-Bullying Statutes

Posted on February 6th, 2018

By: Nicholas McGuire In State v. Bishop, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s cyber-bullying statute on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Cyber-bullying, bullying that occurs through electronic technology, has become more prevalent in recent years as much of adolescent life shifts to social media Continue Reading »

Chance to Change: Jennings v. Rodriguez as a Chance to Bring Due Process to a Broken Detention System

Posted on January 19th, 2018

By: Joe Bianco Jennings v. Rodriguez will determine whether specific classes of detained noncitizens will be entitled to bond hearings before Immigration Judges moving forward. The challenge comes from the Ninth Circuit, which, with the Second Circuit, mandates bond hearings for some detainees automatically after six months. Those Circuits found that after that point, the detention Continue Reading »

National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.: A Test of Might

Posted on December 18th, 2017

By: Elizabeth Storey National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA pits two co-equal federal statutes head-to-head. The Federal Arbitration Act mandates that all arbitration clauses be enforced. The National Labor Relations Act grants employees the right to act collectively to bring claims against employers. The Supreme Court must decide whether arbitration clauses in employment contracts, Continue Reading »