Commentaries

Utah v. Strieff and the Future of Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Zack Gong In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, Continue Reading »

Going to Hell in a HHS Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate’s Next Impermissible Burden on Religious Freedom

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Trey O’Callaghan The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and Continue Reading »

Ocasio v. United States: The Scope of a Conspiracy to Commit Hobbs Act Extortion

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Benjamin Ludewig Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Continue Reading »

Gutting Public Sector Unions: California Teachers Association v. Friedrichs

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Jake Wasserman In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union–whether or not they are union members–and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, Continue Reading »

Ring Around the Jury: Reviewing Florida’s Capital Sentencing Framework in Hurst v. Florida

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Richard Guyer This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida’s death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida’s capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society’s moral views, Continue Reading »

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel v. Abbott and the Apportionment Population Debate

Posted on March 9th, 2016

By Joey Herman The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain Continue Reading »

Of all the Gin Joints: Harris and the Supreme Court’s Reluctant Jurisprudence on Partisanship in Redistricting

Posted on March 8th, 2016

By Andrew Bellis As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. Continue Reading »

Revisiting ERISA Preemption in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual

Posted on March 8th, 2016

By Nicole B. Gage Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law. In 1974 Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing benefits offered by employers to their employees. The purpose of this statute was ensuring the uniformity of the law applicable to employee benefts. The Supreme Court case of Continue Reading »

Foster v. Chatman: Clarifying the Batson Test for Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes

Posted on February 24th, 2016

By Meghan Daly Historically, peremptory challenges were thought necessary to ensure fair and impartial juries, but the tactic has also been widely used by prosecutors for racially discriminatory purposes. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Foster v. Chatman, that deals with alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges which led to striking all black jurors from Continue Reading »

Commentaries

Utah v. Strieff and the Future of Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Zack Gong In the recent case State v. Strieff, the Supreme Court of Utah held that police’s discovery of a lawful outstanding warrant during an unlawful investigatory stop cannot save the evidence obtained during that arrest from suppression under the attenuation doctrine. To reach that decision, the court reasoned that the inevitable discovery doctrine, Continue Reading »

Going to Hell in a HHS Notice: The Contraceptive Mandate’s Next Impermissible Burden on Religious Freedom

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Trey O’Callaghan The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that eligible religious organizations submit a notice objecting to providing their employees contraceptive coverage if they religiously object to contraception or abortifacients is as simple as filing a piece of paper. But to a collection of Catholic petitioners, complying with this requirement gives rise to “scandal” and Continue Reading »

Ocasio v. United States: The Scope of a Conspiracy to Commit Hobbs Act Extortion

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Benjamin Ludewig Ocasio v. United States presents the question of whether a conviction under the general federal conspiracy statute may be based on Hobbs Act extortion when a public official defendant has formed an agreement to obtain property from someone within the conspiracy. There is currently a circuit split on the question presented in Continue Reading »

Gutting Public Sector Unions: California Teachers Association v. Friedrichs

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Jake Wasserman In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union–whether or not they are union members–and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, Continue Reading »

Ring Around the Jury: Reviewing Florida’s Capital Sentencing Framework in Hurst v. Florida

Posted on May 17th, 2016

By: Richard Guyer This commentary discusses Hurst v. Florida, a case in which the Supreme court will review Florida’s death sentencing scheme to determine whether it violates the Sixth of Eighth Amendments. The author argues that Florida’s capital sentencing framework violates the Sixth Amendment. A jury, rather than a judge, better reflects society’s moral views, Continue Reading »

Districtly Speaking: Evenwel v. Abbott and the Apportionment Population Debate

Posted on March 9th, 2016

By Joey Herman The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, promises substantial equality of population within state legislative districts under the “one-person, one-vote” rule. Most frequently, total population is the basis for state reapportionament, but state citizenship and voter registration populations have also been acceptable bases in certain Continue Reading »

Of all the Gin Joints: Harris and the Supreme Court’s Reluctant Jurisprudence on Partisanship in Redistricting

Posted on March 8th, 2016

By Andrew Bellis As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects the voting power of citizens. Thus, drawing state legislative districts resulting in dilution of citizens’ voting power may violate the Constitution. However, the question of what factors a state may take into account when redistricting has not been settled. Continue Reading »

Revisiting ERISA Preemption in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual

Posted on March 8th, 2016

By Nicole B. Gage Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law. In 1974 Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing benefits offered by employers to their employees. The purpose of this statute was ensuring the uniformity of the law applicable to employee benefts. The Supreme Court case of Continue Reading »

Foster v. Chatman: Clarifying the Batson Test for Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes

Posted on February 24th, 2016

By Meghan Daly Historically, peremptory challenges were thought necessary to ensure fair and impartial juries, but the tactic has also been widely used by prosecutors for racially discriminatory purposes. This Commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Foster v. Chatman, that deals with alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges which led to striking all black jurors from Continue Reading »