Constitutional Law

Online
Essay
Offended-Observer Standing’s Last Stand: Kennedy as the Final Nail in a Flawed Doctrine’s Coffin
Stephen Vukovits
Stephen Vukovits is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2024.

He thanks Matthew Makowski, Anson Fung, Virginia Robinson, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.

This past term, the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) formally overturned the notorious Lemon test that had governed Establishment Clause jurisprudence for more than a half-century.

Online
Essay
Failing the Sniff Test: Using Marijuana Odor to Establish Probable Cause in Illinois Post-Legalization
Claire J. Rice
Claire J. Rice is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2023.

She thanks her family, her friends, and the entire University of Chicago Law Review Online team.

Imagine that a convicted felon in Illinois is pulled over by the police. He hasn’t smoked all day. Stuffed in his coat pocket, however, is a baggy containing marijuana residue—a remnant from several days prior.

Online
Essay
The Unconstitutional Racial Animus Behind Federal Marijuana Criminalization
Alessandro Clark-Ansani
Alessandro Clark-Ansani is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2023.

He thanks Anson Fung, Matthew Makowski, Virginia Robinson, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.

In August 2021, the Honorable Miranda M. Du, Chief Judge for the district court of the District of Nevada, struck down 8 U.S.C § 1326, the federal criminal statute that addresses “illegal reentry” into the United States.

Online
Essay
Applying the State-Created-Danger Doctrine to Cases Involving Suicide in Noncustodial Settings beyond Schools
Jace Lee
Jace Lee is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2023.

He is grateful for his partner Jaehyun Oh for inspiring him to go to law school and for sparking in him an interest in civil rights law. He also thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for helping improve this Case Note with their insightful feedback.

Content warning: discussion of suicide.

Print
Article
Volume 89.1
Remembering: The Constitution and Federally Funded Apartheid
Joy Milligan
Professor, the University of Virginia School of Law.

For helpful feedback, I thank Abhay Aneja, Darby Aono, Abbye Atkinson, Emily Bruce, Guy-Uriel Charles, Erwin Chemerinsky, Gabriel Chin, David Engstrom, Jonathan Glater, Michele Gilman, Becca Goldstein, Jon Gould, Kristen Holmquist, Olatunde Johnson, Daryl Levinson, Melissa Murray, Saira Mohamed, Tejas Narechania, Manisha Padi, Michael Pinard, Richard Primus, Bertrall Ross, Erik Stallman, Aaron Tang, Karen Tani, Rebecca Wexler, and participants in the Northern California Junior Faculty Workshop, Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium, Poverty Law Mini-Workshop, AALS Civil Rights Section Works-in-Progress, NYU Constitutional Theory Colloquium, and the law faculty workshops at Duke, UCLA, the University of Miami, the University of Michigan, and the University of Virginia. I am grateful to the University of Chicago Law Review staff for their exceptional editing, and to Maya Campbell, Toni Mendicino, Talia Stender, and Graham Wyatt for their excellent research assistance.

The substantive Fifth Amendment ideal of preventing the federal government from aiding systemic discrimination receded because of increasing challenges to its substance, judicial fatigue with institutional oversight, and the sweeping scope of the problem—along with collective amnesia regarding the prior decades of constitutional struggle. This Article reveals that forgotten constitutional history. After excavating the Fifth Amendment struggles, I argue that the no-aid norm, and the underlying reality of long-term federal participation in racial apartheid, should be remembered and debated once again.

Print
Comment
Volume 89.1
The Power of Attorneys: Addressing the Equal Protection Challenge to Merit-Based Judicial Selection
Zachary Reger
B.J. & B.A. 2017, University of Missouri; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to the staffers and editors of the University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful comments on this piece.

This Comment responds to the equal protection challenge to merit selection. It argues that merit selection is constitutional by way of multiple exceptions, both recognized and implicit, to the “one person, one vote” principle. And though critics of merit selection often couch their arguments in prodemocratic terms, this Comment argues that merit selection—like the “one person, one vote” principle—promotes rather than thwarts the will of the people.

Print
Comment
Volume 88.8
Can Procedure Take?: The Judicial Takings Doctrine and Court Procedure
Rebecca Hansen
B.A. 2017, Brown University; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

Thank you to Alec Mouser, Kelly Gregg, Henry Walter, Sam Sherman, Ryne Cannon, the University of Chicago Law Review editors, and Professors Lee Fennell and Lior Strahilevitz for their help and advice.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several state legislatures and executives limited the circumstances in which landlords could evict their tenants. Predictably, many of these moratoria were met with challenges under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Print
Book review
v88.3
Organizational Rights in Times of Crisis
Katerina Linos
Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, and Co-Director, Miller Center for Global Challenges and the Law

Vanessa Rivas-Bernandy provided extraordinary research assistance for this piece—thinking through counterarguments and limitations to my claims, in addition to reorganizing convoluted sentences, paragraphs, and pages. For very helpful comments, I am also very grateful to Elena Kempf and to participants at the October 23, 2020, Conference on Measuring Impact in Constitutional Law. I am very grateful for the financial support of the Carnegie Foundation, the Miller Center for Global Challenges and the Law, and the German American Academic Exchange Program.