N.Y.U. Proceedings

Exploring New Approaches to Unsettled Legal Questions

Tag: Constitutional Law Page 1 of 4

A Tool for Judicial Traffic Control: The Pragmatic Case for Why Heck Dismissals Ought Not Always Count as PLRA Strikes

By

On September 24, 2024

In Contributions

by Austin Upshaw *

Since Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996, courts have struggled to harmonize one of its key provisions—the ‘three-strikes rule’—with the Heck bar, a rule derived from Heck v. Humphrey, which prevents district courts from reaching the merits of Section 1983 claims that attack the validity of a conviction before that conviction has been overturned on appeal or through collateral proceedings. The PLRA’s three-strikes rule provides that if an incarcerated person has had three or more of their suits dismissed for failing to state a claim, they can no longer proceed in forma pauperis. Denial of in forma pauperis effectively prevents indigent incarcerated people from accessing relief in federal court. The crux of the Heck issue is a procedural one: is every Heck dismissal equivalent to a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)? The current circuit split mainly concerns whether Heck created a pleading requirement Section 1983 plaintiffs must plead and prove, or whether it is a waivable affirmative defense. But that focus is misplaced because a Heck-barred complaint can be properly dismissed under 12(b)(6) regardless of whether it is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense. The better way to resolve the issue is on pragmatic, policy-driven grounds. The Heck bar is best treated as a ripeness doctrine that district courts can bypass at their sound discretion. If Heck is treated as a tool for judicial traffic control, rather than a rigid jurisdictional bar, district courts can ensure meritorious claims are not wrongfully treated as ‘strikes’ under the PLRA.

Read More

The Free Exercise Clause and School Funding: Why a State’s Exclusion of Jewish Orthodox Schools from Funding Does Not Violate the First Amendment

By

On September 17, 2024

In Contributions

by Edward Stein*

Recent disputes over government’s exclusion of religious private schools from public funding shine new light on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which commands that the government “shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) offers states federal funds to assist in educating children with disabilities. The question remains whether a state government’s exclusion of Jewish Orthodox schools from IDEA funding triggers strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. This Contribution argues that exclusion of Jewish Orthodox schools from IDEA funding does not impose a sufficiently substantial burden on the religious exercise of Jewish Orthodox schools or their students’ families, and thus does not trigger strict scrutiny. First, this Contribution situates this issue by explaining the difference between direct and indirect burdens. Second, it distinguishes Jewish Orthodox parents from prior free exercise claimants to show that they do not face a substantial burden. Finally, it contends that Jewish Orthodox schools are also not subject to a substantial burden because they face a permissible use-based exclusion.

Read More

Lending a Helping or Harmful Hand? Why Federal Magistrate Judges Should Not Accept Felony Guilty Pleas

By

On April 3, 2024

In Contributions

by Mariana Lopez*

Magistrate judges perform a crucial role in the federal judiciary system by reducing the administrative burden on Article III judges. Courts, however, remain divided on the scope of magistrates’ duties, and importantly, whether they have  final decision-making authority to accept felony guilty pleas under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Vesting this duty in a magistrate judge violates the Federal Magistrates Act, which allows district judges to delegate “additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”1 The weightiness of this task, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution should prohibit magistrate judges from accepting guilty pleas, regardless of a criminal defendant’s consent, and require magistrates to submit a report and recommendation to an Article III judge who may then accept the plea. As the consequences of a felony verdict weigh heavily on defendants and our judicial system, this task should remain in the hands of a constitutionally endorsed Article III Judge.

Read More

Striking “the Average Person as Quite Strange”: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Heed Justice Alito’s Concerns if It Chooses to Take Up the Issue of Acquitted-Conduct Sentencing

By

On November 29, 2023

In Contributions

by Lindsay Campbell*

The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in McClinton v. United States—a case which would have required the Court to consider whether the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing violates criminal defendants’ rights under the Constitution. This piece considers and responds to Justice Alito’s concurrence in the Court’s denial, arguing that Justice Alito misconstrues the constitutional issues presented by Petitioner’s claims. Specifically, he inaccurately conflates acquitted conduct and uncharged conduct; he overemphasizes the role stare decisis would play in the Court’s ruling; and he expresses concerns over the workability of criminal sentencing absent the use of acquitted conduct—concerns which only serve to highlight the unconstitutionality of the United States’ present sentencing scheme. If the Supreme Court were to take up this issue, Justice Alito’s considerations should not bar the Court from finding that the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing violates criminal defendants’ right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and their right to a trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment.

Read More

Resisting the Essentialist Trap: Title IX, School Bathrooms, and Nonbinary Identities in a Post-Bostock World

By

On November 28, 2023

In Contributions

by Zachary Kasdin*

Should courts extend the protections of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to protect not only transgender students who identify within the binary genders “male” or “female,” but also to nonbinary, gender-nonconforming (“GNC”), and intersex students? In this Contribution, Zachary Kasdin (’24) analyzes the two leading doctrinal approaches to the question of whether a school discriminates against a transgender student “because of sex” when it denies that student access to whichever bathroom aligns with their gender identity. He then argues that, despite some difficulties, both approaches leave room for nonbinary, GNC, and intersex students to bring compelling Title IX claims in the school bathroom-access context.

Read More

An Exception that Swallows the Rule: Limiting the Automobile Exception to Prohibit Warrantless Searches of Electronic Data in Cars

By

On October 9, 2023

In Contributions

by Lucy Sundelson*

The Supreme Court has long held that under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable,” except in a few limited circumstances.1 One exception to the rule is the automobile exception, which allows police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle and its contents with probable cause. Over time, the automobile exception has expanded beyond its original purpose, allowing police to search cars and their contents indiscriminately, and its modern application threatens to swallow the warrant requirement altogether. Computer technology offers an opportunity for courts to limit the breadth of the automobile exception and ensure it remains faithful to the purpose of the Fourth Amendment: given the profoundly private information computers and cell phones store, courts must hold that the exception does not extend to such devices. While the Court has not ruled directly on this issue, two recent decisions dealing with other exceptions to the warrant requirement make clear that the Justices agree electronic data must be handled differently than other belongings in the Fourth Amendment context. Courts should use these decisions to prohibit the warrantless search of cell phones and other similar electronic devices, even when they are found within cars.

Read More

“You’re Blocked”: Section 1983 Liability in the Age of Social Media

By

On April 25, 2023

In Contributions

by Emma Becker*

With the advent of social media, a digital “town square” was created whereby elected officials and their constituents could interact in new, unforeseen ways. With the creation of this new space, however, came difficult First Amendment questions regarding digital access to officials via social media. When elected officials block constituents from their social media accounts are they acting under “color of state law,” thereby violating the First Amendment rights of those who are blocked? This Contribution argues that to determine whether an elected official is acting under “color of state law” when blocking constituents, courts should undertake a totality of the circumstances analysis, focusing on whether the social media account is swathed in the trappings of the official’s office, and whether the social media account was used as a tool of governance.

Read More

A SLAPP in the Face: How State Anti-SLAPP Statutes Can Still Apply in Federal Courts Exercising Diversity Jurisdiction

By

On April 18, 2023

In Contributions

by Conner Kozisek*

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) is a meritless lawsuit designed to chill constitutionally protected speech, thereby posing a dangerous threat to First Amendment rights. To challenge the chilling effects of SLAPP suits, more than 30 states and the District of Columbia have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation, many of which create a special motion to strike a claim based on a defendant’s speech in furtherance of their First Amendment rights. Because there is no federal anti-SLAPP legislation, the federal judiciary is divided on whether anti-SLAPP laws should apply in federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction, especially in the wake of the Court’s fractured opinion in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. This Contribution argues that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply the approach set forth in Justice Stevens’s Shady Grove concurrence to recognize the potential substantive rights created by or protected through anti-SLAPP legislation.

Read More

Federal Abortion Legislation: Looking to Dobbs, State Legislation, and the Commerce Clause to Chart a Path Forward

By

On December 8, 2022

In Contributions

by Soleil Ball Van Zee *

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opened the door to states individually regulating, controlling, and criminalizing abortion and abortion-related care. In the emerging state legislative patchwork, conflicts between state laws demonstrate the increasing need for federal abortion legislation to ensure uniformity and halt interstate constitutional litigation before it begins. This Contribution proposes a framework for federal abortion legislation that can protect long-standing principles of federalism in this new age.

Read More

The Inadequacy of Brandenburg’s Imminence: Incitement Regulation in the Internet Era

By

On December 1, 2022

In Contributions

by Matthew Uvas*

Certain classes of speech are deemed to be so dangerous that they fall outside of the protections of the First Amendment. Regulation of one such class, incitement, seeks to prevent speech which would encourage lawless and violent action. The modern test for whether speech qualifies as incitement hinges upon whether the speech is likely to produce imminent lawless action. However, when hateful or violent speech is spread online, there may be a delay from when a post is made to when someone sees it and responds violently. Therefore, in these cases, imminence may not be an appropriate measure for identifying incitement language online. This Contribution argues that history, case law, and other First Amendment jurisprudence suggests shifting focus to context rather than imminence when regulating online incitement.

Read More

Page 1 of 4

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén