Constitutional Law
The History of History and Tradition: The Roots of Dobbs's Method (and Originalism) in the Defense of Segregation
In Dobbs, the Court reversed Roe, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment by counting states that banned abortion in 1868, an interpretive method popularized in the defense of segregation. This Essay traces the method’s spread, evolution, and justifications through decades of debate about originalism, history and tradition, and “levels of generality.”
The History of Neutrality: Dobbs and the Social-Movement Politics of History and Tradition
By excavating the history around the history-and-tradition test used in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the alternative it pushes to the side, this Essay reconsiders the meaning—and plausibility—of neutrality claims turning on the Dobbs Court’s use of history and tradition.
De-judicialization Strategies
Constitutions have long been understood to empower courts. We argue, however, that constitutions can also be used to de-judicialize politics. We focus on the de-judicialization strategy of adding detailed provisions to U.S. state constitutions, and demonstrate that it has been employed throughout U.S. history and is still in use today.
Tar Heel Constitutionalism: The New Judicial Federalism in North Carolina
Like many other state constitutions, the North Carolina Constitution contains unique provisions guaranteeing individual rights not present in the U.S. Constitution. This Essay explores the extent to which political and civil rights in the North Carolina Constitution have been enforced by the state supreme court in modern times.
The “Bounds” of Moore: Pluralism and State Judicial Review
This Essay examines a potential version of the “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT) that, were it adopted, could require states to adopt particular interpretive methods for state laws regarding federal elections. That ISLT variant, however, has no basis in history, federalism, or democracy.
The Right to Amend State Constitutions
This Essay explores the people’s right to amend state constitutions and threats to that right today. It explains how democratic proportionality review can help courts distinguish unconstitutional infringement of the right from legitimate regulation. More broadly, the Essay considers the distinctive state constitutional architecture that popular amendment illuminates.
“Trying to Save the White Man’s Soul”: Perpetually Convergent Interests and Racial Subjugation
The assumption that remedying racial inequality benefits only people of color while being costly to White people underlies many Supreme Court decisions. White people benefit spiritually and democratically from racial equality. Recognizing these benefits warrants a new theory of interest convergence and offers a promising path toward racial equality.
The Unabridged Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment is usually an afterthought compared to the Fourteenth Amendment. This oversight is perplexing: the Fifteenth Amendment ushered in a brief period of multiracial democracy and laid the constitutional foundation for the VRA. This Article completes the historical record, providing an unabridged accounting of the Fifteenth Amendment’s adoption.
“We Do No Such Thing”: 303 Creative v. Elenis and the Future of First Amendment Challenges to Public Accommodations Laws
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that a business had a right to refuse to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. But properly understood, the decision’s parameters are narrow, and the decision should have minimal effect on public accommodations laws.
Establishment as Tradition
Traditionalism holds that enduring practices are the presumptive determinants of constitutional meaning and law. This Essay examines two questions: Why has traditionalism had special salience in interpreting the Establishment Clause? And is traditionalism more disposition or mood than constitutional theory, more a matter of the heart than of the head?
Freedom for Religion
The First Amendment’s religious-freedom provisions are best understood as protecting “freedom for religion”—religious liberty for the benefit of religion, for generous protection of its free exercise by individuals and groups, and for the autonomy of religious institutions. The Supreme Court’s most recent decisions appear headed in that direction.
Replacing Smith
As the Supreme Court has sought to ground more of its constitutional jurisprudence in original understanding, it has signaled an interest in revisiting aspects of Employment Division v. Smith. This Essay assesses potential replacement doctrines and defends a historically grounded version of strict scrutiny that does not require judicial balancing.
In Loco Reipublicae
This Article proposes a new framework for children in constitutional law that recognizes children’s rights as developing citizens and parents’ duties to safeguard those rights. An examination of children’s First Amendment right to access ideas illustrates parents’ duty to ensure children are exposed to information critical to their democratic citizenship.
Practice-Based Constitutional Theories
This Feature provides the first full-length and most in-depth analysis of practice-based constitutional theories to date. It identifies and examines the primary justifications offered for such theories and shows why they are insufficient, on their own terms, to justify conforming to our social practices.
Base Constitutional Communities: Lessons from Liberation Theology for Democratic Constitutionalism
Liberation theologians advocate for lay interpretation of the Bible in base ecclesial communities. Proponents of democratic constitutionalism should adapt the base-ecclesial-community model to the constitutional context. By participating in base constitutional communities, Americans can play a direct role in constitutional interpretation, thereby improving the democratic legitimacy of constitutional law.
Deciphering the Commander-in-Chief Clause
At the Founding, commanders in chief (CINCs) enjoyed neither sole nor supreme military authority, each military branch having many chief commanders. Thus, most presidential authority over the military stemmed from the rest of Article II, not the CINC Clause. Consequently, Congress enjoys sweeping authority over the military and its operations.
Originalism-by-Analogy and Second Amendment Adjudication
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a novel historical-analogical approach to constitutional decisionmaking. The Court sought to constrain judicial discretion, but Bruen’s originalism-by-analogy has enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. This Article describes Bruen’s methodology, identifies its challenges, and offers solutions.
Legislative Constitutionalism and Federal Indian Law
This Feature offers alternative strategies and visions for a less court-centered constitutionalism with a case study of federal Indian law and American colonialism—a case study that places not only Congress, but the philosophies and agency of Native people and nations at the center of our constitutional law and history.
The Weaponization of Attorney’s Fees in an Age of Constitutional Warfare
States are using the threat of catastrophic, one-sided fee awards to evade judicial review in controversial areas like abortion and gun control. Litigants challenging such laws—and their attorneys—face liability for the opposing party’s legal fees, while the state and its ideological allies bear no such risk.