By Hudson Kingston
Why do governments kill people?
Ignoring the extra cost and unequal application of the death penalty for a moment, what are the justifications for keeping it in a democratic society?
[Read more…] about Where is Thy Sting?
Maryland v. King: The Constitutionality of DNA Fingerprinting for Arrestees
By David Yin
On Nov. 9th the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Maryland v. King, 425 Md. 550 (2012), a case from the Maryland Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court.
Maryland, like many states, has a statute requiring state and local police to collect DNA samples from individuals merely arrested for crimes of violence or burglary, MD Code Pub. Safety § 2-504. The federal government has a similar law, 42 U.S.C. § 14135(a), which commands federal law enforcement to collect DNA samples from every individual charged with federal felonies, sexual crimes, or other crimes of violence (though if an the individual is not convicted, there is a mechanism to expunge his or her DNA submission from the national database). Importantly, however, these DNA samples are collected pre-conviction, from presumptively innocent individuals, and without individualized judicial review–i.e. without warrants. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the State of Maryland’s collection of buccal swabs for DNA testing from arrestees like Mr. King was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. After the Maryland v. King ruling was issued, Chief Justice Roberts issued a stay to suspend enforcement of the state court ruling; now that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari, the Court will have the opportunity to formally overturn it and legitimize DNA collection statutes around the country.
[Read more…] about Maryland v. King: The Constitutionality of DNA Fingerprinting for Arrestees
What is a “proportional” congressional response when states violate people’s voting rights?
By Anthony Kammer
Florida State University law professor Franita Tolson had an interesting guest post at Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog this weekend, laying out an argument that might end up being important in the constitutional challenge of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
To provide some background, the issue before the Court in Shelby County v. Holder is whether Congress had the authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments when, in 2006, it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act with the preexisting coverage formula from Section 4(b). The Court is expected to confront this issue under the Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), line of cases, which would require that any congressional legislation enacted under the 14th and 15th Amendments be “congruent and proportional” to the constitutional violation it seeks to remedy.
[Read more…] about What is a “proportional” congressional response when states violate people’s voting rights?
An Open Letter to Walter Kirn About Ohio
By Jonathan Peters
Dear Walter,
I teach journalism courses at the University of Missouri and Ohio University, and every semester I help freshmen and sophomores write their first stories. Many of them struggle. They don’t know what to include, where to put things, how to edit for clarity, and so on. As they fight the blank page, they learn how to write and how not to write. I show them stories to illustrate best and worst practices, and now I’m indebted to you and your Ohio essay in The New Republic. It’s a major contribution to the body of knowledge of how not to write.
[Read more…] about An Open Letter to Walter Kirn About Ohio
Martin Garbus: Citizens United is the most serious threat today to free speech, and “there are two First Amendments”
By Jonathan Peters
This is the tenth in a series of interviews I’m conducting with lawyers and scholars who’ve made a mark on freedom of expression. Follow me @jonathanwpeters on Twitter.
Martin Garbus is a trial lawyer and First Amendment expert who has appeared multiple times before the U.S. Supreme Court and in trial and appellate courts around the country. His clients have ranged from Nelson Mandela to Al Pacino to Daniel Ellsberg to Cesar Chavez to Don Imus. Garbus served as legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, co-director of the Columbia University Center on Social Policy, and chairman of the Lawyers Constitutional Defense Committee. He has taught trial practice at Yale Law School and constitutional law at Columbia Law School. Garbus is the author of six books and numerous articles that have appeared in the New York Times, theWashington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. He was the subject of the 2009 HBO documentary “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech.”
[Read more…] about Martin Garbus: Citizens United is the most serious threat today to free speech, and “there are two First Amendments”
Can We Get Over the Property Thing Already!
By Mark Wilson
Last week’s oral arguments in companion dog-sniffing cases will probably fall along predictable lines. And by “lines,” I mean “property lines.”
The Court will likely reverse Florida v. Jardines on the ground that the officer who brought adorable canine cop Franky to the front door of Jardines’ house was within the curtilage, the space adjacent to and associated with the home. Justice Scalia showed some trepidation at the idea that police could approach a house at any time, for any reason, and bring a canine-sniffing dog along. He likened it to the police peering into the home with binoculars, Rear Window-style. The second case, Florida v. Harris, will probably be affirmed. This case is basically the same as a previous drug-dog case, Illinois v. Caballes, with the exception that Aldo’s certification paperwork had expired 16 months earlier.
[Read more…] about Can We Get Over the Property Thing Already!