PROMISING THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution requires that all legislators, judges, and executive officers swear or affirm their fidelity to it. The resulting practice, often called “the oath,” has had a pervasive role in constitutional law, giving rise to an underappreciated tradition of promissory constitutionalism. For example, the Supreme Court has cited the oath as a reason to invalidate statutes, or sustain them; to respect state courts, or override them; and to follow precedents, or overrule them. Meanwhile, commentators contend that the oath demands particular interpretive methods, such as originalism, or particular distributions of interpretive authority, such as departmentalism. This Article provides a new framework for understanding the oath, its moral content, and its implications for legal practice. Because it engenders a promise, the oath gives rise to personal moral obligations. Further, the content of each oath, like the content of everyday promises, is linked to its meaning at the time it is made. The oath accordingly provides a normative basis for officials to adhere to interpretive methods and substantive principles that are contemporaneously associated with “the Constitution.” So understood, the oath provides a solution to the “dead hand” problem and explains how the people can legitimately bind their elected representatives: with each vote cast, the people today choose to be governed by oath-bound officials tomorrow. Constitutional duty thus flows from a rolling series of promises undertaken by individual officials at different times. As old officials give way to new ones, the overall constitutional order gradually evolves, with each official bound to a distinctive promise from the recent past. This process of gradual change is normally invisible because the oath also incorporates publicly recognized rules for legal change, or “change rules,” such as the Article V amendment process. As a result, the timing of an official’s oath becomes morally relevant only when a legal change has not complied with previously recognized change rules, such as in the case of a revolution. Finally, because promises, even constitutional promises, should sometimes be broken, the oath can illuminate the bounds of constitutional duty, including the role of stare decisis, and shed light on instances when the Constitution itself should be set aside

Fourth Amendment Fairness

Fourth Amendment doctrine is attentive to a wide range of interests, including security, informational privacy, and dignity. How should courts reconcile these competing concerns when deciding which searches and seizures are “unreasonable”? Current doctrine typically answers this question by pointing to interest aggregation: the various interests at stake are added up, placed on figurative scales, and compared, with the goal of promoting overall social welfare. But interest aggregation is disconnected from many settled doctrinal rules and leads to results that are unfair for individuals. The main alternative is originalism; but historical sources themselves suggest that the Fourth Amendment calls for new moral reasoning. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures” is best understood, at least in large part, as a requirement that police investigation be fair in the sense of being authorized by principles that no rights holder could reasonably reject. This approach is inspired by “contractualist” moral philosophy and has several advantages. It tracks widely held moral intuitions, comports with the Fourth Amendment’s historical meaning, and resonates with underappreciated currents in extant case law. In attending to the perspectives of individuals, contractualism generates rights that are not subject to interest aggregation. At the same time, contractualism suggests a principled way to address new Fourth Amendment questions, consistent with courts’ institutional role. A contractualist approach to Fourth Amendment fairness suggests many ways to refine or reform current doctrine. In terms of refinements, the contractualist approach gives moral content to the notion of “individualized suspicion” by showing when searches and seizures can be justified by a principle of individual responsibility. Contractualism also draws attention to other justifying principles, such as a protection principle, and so explains how and when suspicionless searches and seizures are reasonable. Finally, the contractualist approach identifies areas where current Fourth Amendment doctrine is decidedly unfair and ripe for reform, such as when courts limit rights to avoid diffuse litigation costs, overemphasize “reasonable expectations of privacy,” and ignore the unreasonableness of racial discrimination

Should Chevron Have Two Steps?

Prominent judges and scholars have criticized the familiar Chevron deference scheme on the ground that its two steps are redundant. But each step of traditional two-step Chevron actually does unique interpretive work. In short, step one asks whether agency interpretations are mandatory, whereas step two asks whether they are reasonable. Other judges and scholars defend two-step Chevron on the ground that the second step should be equated with arbitrary-and-capricious review. But that approach makes Chevron partially redundant with the Administrative Procedure Act and compresses the distinct mandatoriness and reasonableness questions into an artificially singular first step. This Article identifies a new approach, called “optional two-step,” which first asks whether the agency’s view is reasonable and then gives courts discretion to determine whether the agency’s view is also mandatory. This discretionary decision procedure recognizes that important normative considerations underlie the choice between one- and two-step versions of Chevron. For example, two-step Chevron fosters the rapid development of precedent, whereas one-step enforces norms of judicial restraint. Chevron thus resembles qualified-immunity jurisprudence, which has likewise struggled to answer the normative question of whether unnecessary holdings should be impermissible, obligatory, or optional. Qualified-immunity case law also sheds much-needed light on how courts should exercise their Chevron discretion. Finally, a review of all published federal appellate decisions citing Chevron in 2011 sheds light on current Chevron practice and suggests that optional two-step may best explain the tensions underlying current Chevron jurisprudence

PROMISING THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution requires that all legislators, judges, and executive officers swear or affirm their fidelity to it. The resulting practice, often called “the oath,” has had a pervasive role in constitutional law, giving rise to an underappreciated tradition of promissory constitutionalism. For example, the Supreme Court has cited the oath as a reason to invalidate statutes, or sustain them; to respect state courts, or override them; and to follow precedents, or overrule them. Meanwhile, commentators contend that the oath demands particular interpretive methods, such as originalism, or particular distributions of interpretive authority, such as departmentalism. This Article provides a new framework for understanding the oath, its moral content, and its implications for legal practice. Because it engenders a promise, the oath gives rise to personal moral obligations. Further, the content of each oath, like the content of everyday promises, is linked to its meaning at the time it is made. The oath accordingly provides a normative basis for officials to adhere to interpretive methods and substantive principles that are contemporaneously associated with “the Constitution.” So understood, the oath provides a solution to the “dead hand” problem and explains how the people can legitimately bind their elected representatives: with each vote cast, the people today choose to be governed by oath-bound officials tomorrow. Constitutional duty thus flows from a rolling series of promises undertaken by individual officials at different times. As old officials give way to new ones, the overall constitutional order gradually evolves, with each official bound to a distinctive promise from the recent past. This process of gradual change is normally invisible because the oath also incorporates publicly recognized rules for legal change, or “change rules,” such as the Article V amendment process. As a result, the timing of an official’s oath becomes morally relevant only when a legal change has not complied with previously recognized change rules, such as in the case of a revolution. Finally, because promises, even constitutional promises, should sometimes be broken, the oath can illuminate the bounds of constitutional duty, including the role of stare decisis, and shed light on instances when the Constitution itself should be set aside

Should Chevron Have Two Steps?

Prominent judges and scholars have criticized the familiar Chevron deference scheme on the ground that its two steps are redundant. But each step of traditional two-step Chevron actually does unique interpretive work. In short, step one asks whether agency interpretations are mandatory, whereas step two asks whether they are reasonable. Other judges and scholars defend two-step Chevron on the ground that the second step should be equated with arbitrary-and-capricious review. But that approach makes Chevron partially redundant with the Administrative Procedure Act and compresses the distinct mandatoriness and reasonableness questions into an artificially singular first step. This Article identifies a new approach, called “optional two-step,” which first asks whether the agency’s view is reasonable and then gives courts discretion to determine whether the agency’s view is also mandatory. This discretionary decision procedure recognizes that important normative considerations underlie the choice between one- and two-step versions of Chevron. For example, two-step Chevron fosters the rapid development of precedent, whereas one-step enforces norms of judicial restraint. Chevron thus resembles qualified-immunity jurisprudence, which has likewise struggled to answer the normative question of whether unnecessary holdings should be impermissible, obligatory, or optional. Qualified-immunity case law also sheds much-needed light on how courts should exercise their Chevron discretion. Finally, a review of all published federal appellate decisions citing Chevron in 2011 sheds light on current Chevron practice and suggests that optional two-step may best explain the tensions underlying current Chevron jurisprudence

Reason and Rhetoric in Edwards v. Vannoy

Judicial reasoning and rhetoric should be mutually reinforcing, but often they end up at odds. Edwards v. Vannoy offers an unusually rich opportunity to explore this tension. First, the watershed exception, though declared moribund, may actually have survived. Second, Justice Gorsuch’s ostensibly strict judgment-based approach arguably called for providing relief in Edwards. Third, majority coalitions have a counterintuitive incentive, rooted in rhetoric, to overrule relatively insignificant precedents. Fourth, Edwards featured charges of personal inconsistency that both reflect and facilitate the erosion of conventional legal argument. Finally, the legal system may benefit from the superficial and even fallacious reasoning often resent in judicial decisions, including excellent ones

Software for cut-generating functions in the Gomory--Johnson model and beyond

We present software for investigations with cut generating functions in the Gomory-Johnson model and extensions, implemented in the computer algebra system SageMath.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures; to appear in Proc. International Congress on Mathematical Software 201

Quantitative competitive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction is not a useful method for quantification of CD4 and CD8 cell status during HIV infection

BACKGROUND: A polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based method for quantitating CD4 and CD8 mRNA could provide a means of assessing immune status of AIDS patients and other immunologically compromised persons without requiring large blood draws, and could be exquisitely sensitive. Such a method would also be useful in assessing the immune status of patients retrospectively. RESULTS: Quantitative competitive reverse transcription PCR (QC-RT-PCR) assays were developed for measurement of CD4 and CD8 mRNA. Samples were obtained from HIV-positive and negative patients whose CD4 and CD8 counts had been determined via Flow Cytometry. The quantity of CD4 (n = 13) and CD8 (n = 28) mRNA standardized according to GAPDH mRNA quantities, all determined by QC-RT-PCR, were compared to cell number as determined by flow cytometry. There was no correlation between CD4 and CD8 cell counts and mRNA levels of CD4 and CD8 as determined by QC-RT-PCR. There is no correlation between CD4 and CD8 mRNA levels and the number of cells expressing these proteins on their surface. CONCLUSION: QC-RT-PCR, and related methodologies are not useful substitutes for assessment of CD4 and CD8 cell numbers in HIV-infected persons