Featured
The Souterian and Rehnquistian Views of Legal Talent
Andy Smarick
Latest Articles
-
“Subject to the Jurisdiction” as Legal Text – James A. Heilpern & Keith E. Whittington
The overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that “subject to the jurisdiction” was not used to refer to, or make use of, concepts of “allegiance” but rather was routinely used to describe the circumstances in which individuals were under the governing authority of the sovereign.
-
Addressing Some Perceived Anomalies Referenced in the Trump v. Barbara Oral Argument – Samuel Estreicher & Rudra Reddy
We write here only to address certain perceived anomalies noted by some the Justices during the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara in the hope that it will help the Court’s deliberations.
-
The Declaration of Independence as Kindling the American Culture of Reason-Giving – Donald J. Kochan
A related lesson to be drawn from the Declaration of Independence that has been underexplored: It was an exercise and exemplar of “reason-giving,” arguably kindling by example a custom and culture of reason-giving in American law and politics.
-
Post-Carpenter Confusion to Post-Chatrie Clarity – A. Shea Daley Burdette
How the Fourth Amendment’s third-party doctrine applies to modern surveillance is, of course, an issue of great importance, the answer to which has sweeping implications.
-
The Original Meaning and Understanding of the Investigative Power of the Grand Jury in the Constitution of Alaska – Savannah Shoffner & Richard Garnett
The investigatory, or reporting, power of grand juries refers to the body’s ability to issue statements on wide-ranging matters of public policy, generally aimed at exposing “inefficiency, neglect, or criminal or quasi-criminal conduct” by government officials.
-
Indians and Citizenship: Territorial Birth & Parental Status in Contemporaneous Caselaw – Elias Neibart
Shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, courts were asked to determine the citizenship status of litigants and parties before them: Were they Indians or United States citizens? What the following demonstrates is that courts did not adopt a territory-centric view of citizenship.
From the Archive
Carson v. Makin and the Relativity of Religious Neutrality
“Neither the majority nor the dissent in Carson is neutral in an absolute sense. Such absolute neutrality is impossible to achieve. Religious neutrality is a myth.”
— Lael Weinberger