Precedent and Judicial Power After the Founding

A recent decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit enlivened the controversy over court rules that prevent citation to unpublished opinions when it held that the Circuit\u27s noncitation rule violates Article III of the United States Constitution. This Article affirms the view that judicial power includes a doctrine of precedent, without relying solely upon an originalist interpretation of ArticleIII. This approach identifies a consistent core idea of precedent that courts must consider how a similar case was decided in the past, even where there are varying ideas about the binding nature of that precedent. A long-standing tradition has viewed precedent as a necessary starting point for judicial decision. When a court departs from this core idea, it violates the essential function of the judiciary to treat like cases alike or explain the difference

Federalization of the Mosquito: Structural Innovation in the New Deal Administrative State

Malaria was a significant problem in the southern United States during the early decades of the twentieth century. Part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt¿s New Deal focused on economic development of the South, with improvement of public health in that region as an integral part. This Article is a case study of increased federal public health efforts during the New Deal and World War II eras, which replaced some traditionally state and local areas of control as well as private philanthropic efforts

Toward Proportional Deportation

Professor Price discusses how Professor Banks\u27s contribution provides an especially compelling illustration of the disjuncture between citizenship status and long-term residence in U.S. immigration law. Professor Price argues that Professor Banks makes a compelling case that Congress unintentionally created this schism and that this state of affairs need not be

A Chinese Wall at the Nation\u27s Borders: Justice Stephen Field and The Chinese Exclusion Case

First, the sweeping implications of The Chinese Exclusion Case had as much to do with the Supreme Court\u27s concerns about its relationship with both Congress and the President as it did with the Chinese as a disparaged racial group. There are other dimensions beyond race, and one of these was the Supreme Court\u27s view of its role with respect to the other branches of government. Importantly, the Court did not decide the balance of authority between the President and Congress on matters of immigration, an omission that surely lessens its precedential value today. Second, the Court\u27s pronouncement in the Chinese Exclusion Case validated another Act of Congress that applied to all immigrants brought in for cheap labor, not just the Chinese. Throughout the progressive era, the Alien Contract Labor Act limited the rights of industrialists, manufacturers, and owners of capital to hire non-citizens. There was no serious question of the constitutionality of this sweeping legislation because the nation\u27s ability to exclude sources of cheap immigrant labor had been settled by The Chinese Exclusion Case. While undoubtedly animated by racial hatred, the Chinese Exclusion Act specifically targeted Chinese laborers, ostensibly allowing merchants, teachers, tourists, and some skilled workers to enter and to remain in the United States. The Alien Contract Labor Act, best known to lawyers through the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, rested its foundation on the structure and function of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Third, in the midst of Chinese exclusion and a new concern about porous land borders, the Supreme Court handed down the most significant citizenship case it ever decided, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The same era of Chinese exclusion saw the Supreme Court resolve another highly contentious issue, again involving the Chinese: whether all persons born within the United States were citizens, or whether the Fourteenth Amendment\u27s citizenship clause applied only to former slaves. After citizenship by birth in the United States was established for all races, the administrative process for exclusion and deportation of Chinese laborers was forever changed, altering in tum the role of the executive branch and the judiciary with respect to the Chinese question

Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin\u27s Case (1608)

Great empires and humble nations alike have made similar choices in determining who will be citizens. The world\u27s nations emphasize one or the other of only two methods for determining citizenship at birth. Most nations assign citizenship at birth according to the citizenship of at least one of the parents. A few nations, including the United States, assign citizenship on the circumstance of place of birth-within the territorial boundaries of the nation-regardless of the citizenship of the parents. While the United States also permits the children of its citizens born abroad to be considered U.S. citizens from birth, the predominant mode of birthright citizenship in this country, and the only one grounded in the Constitution, is that which bestows citizenship upon anyone born on United States soil. The roots of United States conceptions of birthright citizenship lie deep in England\u27s medieval past. This Article explores Calvin\u27s Case (1608) and the early modern common-law mind that first articulated a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Involving al the important English judges of the day, Calvin\u27s Case addressed the question of whether persons born in Scotland, following the descent of the English crown to the Scottish King James VI in 1603, would be considered subjects in England. Calvin\u27s Casedetermined that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King\u27s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King\u27s protection. Calvin\u27s Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person\u27s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth. In the view of Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin\u27s Case, the court\u27s determination was required by the divine law of nature, which was indeed ... the eternal law of the Creator and part of the law of England

Infecting the Body Politic: Observations on Health Security and the “Undesirable” Immigrant

This is the published version

\u3cem\u3eMapp v. Ohio\u3c/em\u3e Revisited: A Law Clerk\u27s Diary

The 1960 Supreme Court Term laid the groundwork for the subsequent revolution in the relationship between state and federal law accomplished by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The most famous search and seizure case in American history - Mapp v. Ohio - would be decided that Term. Mapp held that the Fourth Amendment\u27s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures required the exclusion of evidence found through an illegal search by state and local police officers, extending to the states a rule that had previously applied only to federal law enforcement. Mapp became a pivotal chapter in the story of civil rights in the United States

Stateless in the United States: Current Reality and a Future Prediction

Statelessness exists in the United States--a fact that should be of concern to advocates of strict immigration control as well as those who favor a more welcoming policy. The predominant reasons for statelessness include the presence of individuals who are unable to prove their nationality and the failure of their countries of origin to recognize them as citizens. Migrants with unclear nationality, already a problem for the United States, obstruct efforts to control immigration by the deportation of unauthorized aliens. These existing problems of national identity will increase exponentially if birthright citizenship in the United States is amended to exclude the children of undocumented aliens. Contrary to common assumptions, proposed changes to U.S. citizenship law would exacerbate statelessness into the next generation when no fallback nationality is available