Constitutional Law

If it Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fixate on it: Gadamer, Gedicks, and Original Public Meaning

Michael C. Dorf

Abstract Response to Frederick Mark Gedicks, The “Fixation Thesis” and Other Falsehoods In The “Fixation Thesis” and Other Falsehoods, Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks argues that public meaning originalists are mistaken in their claim that the Constitution today means just what it meant when it was adopted. Unlike living constitutionalists who say that the document’s meaning […]

Testa, Crain, and the Constitutional Right to Collateral Relief

Carlos M. Vázquez & Stephen I. Vladeck

Response to Ann Woolhandler & Michael G. Collins, State Jurisdictional Independence and Federal Supremacy Abstract        In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners have a constitutional right to relief from continued imprisonment if the prisoner’s conviction or sentence contravenes a new substantive rule of constitutional law. Specifically, the Court held […]

Affording The Franchise: Amendment 4 & The Senate Bill 7066 Litigation

Dalia Figueredo

Abstract Felon re-enfranchisement statutes that condition the restoration ofvoting rights on the payment of legal financial obligations have beenchallenged under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments to theU.S. Constitution. To date, these challenges have been unsuccessfulbecause felons are not a protected class, disenfranchised felons do nothave a fundamental right to vote under existing case law, and […]

‘Nothing Compares 2 U:’ A Response to Beyond Compare: A Codefendant’s Prison Sentence as a Mitigating Factor in Death Penalty Cases

John H. Blume & Megan E. Barnes

Abstract Response to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, Beyond Compare: A Codefendant’s Prison Sentence as a Mitigating Factor in Death Penalty Cases The argument that the Court’s desire to eliminate arbitrariness in capital sentencing should allow juries to consider co-defendant sentences applies with equal force to juveniles sentenced to life without parole—to whom the Court has applied similar […]

Objectively Correct

William D. Araiza

Abstract The nub of Professor Smith’s Response is that animus doctrine reflects the polarization of our culture to the point where the only common ground is a consensus that “it is wrong to act from pure hatred or hostility.” That realization both unlocks a doctrinal box but also warns of its contents. If hatred or […]

Let Them Eat Cake or Let Him Not Bake? Summary and Analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Michael Beato

Unlike most cases brought before the United States Supreme Court, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission captured the nation’s attention. In this case, free speech rights were pitted against an anti-discrimination law, and religious rights were pitted against the dignity of same-sex marriage. While these constitutional doctrines might seem nuanced and obscure to most, […]