Summary: In Moore v. Harper, decided last year, the Supreme Court addressed the “independent state legislature theory.” In a case arising out of an election in North Carolina, proponents of the theory contended that North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not have the authority to review a legal claim that the state legislature had adopted an illegally gerrymandered congressional map. The Supreme Court rejected the theory by a 6-3 vote in Moore. In this Touro Law Review podcast, Nicholas Maggio, an attorney who has written about the independent state legislature theory, discusses the case – in particular, its relevance during an election year and its significance for understanding the current Supreme Court – with Associate Dean Rodger Citron.
In this podcast recorded in December 2021, Professor Marianne Artusio discusses the legality of vaccine mandates in the United States. As she explains, historically courts generally applied a deferential rational basis test when evaluating legal challenges to such mandates. Professor Artusio also discusses recent vaccine mandates adopted in response to the pandemic as well as how courts have responded to lawsuits challenging those mandates.
Listen to our latest podcast where Mr. Curtis discusses his recent publication Of Arms and the Militia: Gun Regulation by Defining “Ordinary Military Equipment.” Mr. Curtis debates that the regulation of semi-automatic riles and other arms can be achieved by defining “ordinary military equiptment” provided to militia members under the Second Amendment. The full text of the article can be found here.
In this episode of the Touro Law Review Podcast, our invited guest, renowned attorney, professor and writer, Alan Dershowitz, discusses the relationship between so-called “cancel culture” and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Professor Dershowitz is joined in the podcast by: Prof. Peter Zablotsky as moderator; Georgia Reid, third-year law student and Online Editor of the Touro Law Review; and Professor Jorge R. Roig, who teaches Constitutional Law at the Touro Law Center.
This paper was originally written in January of 2020 for Professor Lawrence Raful’s course “The Scottsboro Boys: Racism and American Law”at Touro Law Center.
The Scottsboro case is one that changed the landscape of American jurisprudence forever. It is a case that highlights extreme divides between races, genders, and territories in America. While the events that led to the trials took place in 1931, there are still many pressing issues brought up in Scottsboro that remain important today, nearly a century after the fact. There is still a racial divide in the American justice system, as well as a class divide. And the unique history and culture of the American South creates an environment where this divide exists at its widest.
Drew S. Days, III, lived an extraordinary life in the law. Born in the segregated South, Days graduated from Yale Law School in 1966 and pursued a career as a civil rights lawyer. In 1977, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
After his stint in the administration of President Jimmy Carter, Days became a professor at Yale Law School. In 1993, Days returned to the federal government after President Bill Clinton appointed him Solicitor General of the United States. He served in that position until 1996 then returned to Yale Law School as a professor.
Days died earlier this month at the age of 79. Regarding Days, former Yale Law School Dean and Sterling Professor of International Law Harold Hongju Koh said, “Drew was a gentle, courageous lawyer of principle, deeply committed to human and civil rights. He always spoke quietly and modestly, but with such moral authority.” Koh added that Days “cared nothing for titles or recognition because his client was always the Constitution, not the political powers of the moment. His life will be remembered as a reminder of the moral urgency of putting principle first.”
In 2011, Days visited Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center to deliver the Howard A. Glickstein Civil Rights and Public Policy Lecture. As part of his visit, Professor Days was interviewed by Professor Rodger Citron about his life and career. An edited transcript of their conversation, published in the Touro Law Review in 2014, follows.
Kyllo v. United States[1] created a rule with an unnecessary test that allows a home, a person’s castle, to be searched without a warrant. The Kyllo rule states: “[O]btaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical ‘intrusion into a constitutionally protected area’ constitutes a search — at least where . . . the technology in question is not in general public use.”[2] This rule was intended to be forward-looking and anticipate future technology.[3] However, the “general public use” test is a loophole that can be used by law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches of homes in violation of Fourth Amendment principles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.