Constitutional Law – Page 20 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Ohio v. Clark: The Supreme Court’s Latest Pronouncement on the Confrontation Clause

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:June 26, 2015
Post category:Constitutional Law Criminal Law & Process Public U.S. Supreme Court

By guaranteeing criminal defendants the right to confront their accusers, the Sixth Amendment limits the ability of the government to use hearsay evidence against defendants at trial. Importantly, though, the Confrontation Clause only limits the use of statements that are “testimonial” in nature. A pair of Supreme Court cases from 2006 clarified what makes a statement testimonial, but left an important question unanswered. Last week, the Court finally provided an answer (sort of) in Ohio v. Clark.

Clark featured an unusually unsympathetic defendant who was convicted of physically abusing his girlfriend’s two very young children.

Legislative Diplomacy After Zivotofsky

Post author:Ryan Scoville
Post published:June 15, 2015
Post category:Constitutional Law International Law & Diplomacy Public

The Supreme Court’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry held that Congress violated the separation of powers by enacting a statute that purported to compel the President to issue statements that contradict his policy of strict neutrality on the status of Jerusalem. In a recent post, I analyzed a disagreement between the majority and the dissent on the significance of foreign perceptions of U.S. law. I’ve now written a second post on the case, this time exploring Zivotofsky‘s implications for the constitutionality of diplomatic communications between Congress and foreign governments. It’s available over at Lawfare.

The Role of Foreign Perceptions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Post author:Ryan Scoville
Post published:June 12, 2015
Post category:Constitutional Law International Law & Diplomacy Public

On Monday the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited and important decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry. This was a case about the nature of the President’s power to recognize foreign borders, and it required the Court to address the constitutionality of Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2002, which entitled U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to have “Jerusalem, Israel” listed on their passports as the place of birth. While the statutory entitlement may seem rather mundane, it conflicted with the Executive Branch’s longstanding policy of strict neutrality on Jerusalem’s status by suggesting that the city is located within Israeli borders. Because the Executive policy dictated that passports list only “Jerusalem,” Presidents Bush and Obama refused to implement the statute. Thus the question: Who gets to decide whether the United States will recognize Jerusalem as Israeli territory–Congress or the President?

The Court sided with the President and declared the statute unconstitutional. I wrote a post addressing one of the interesting issues in the case over at Lawfare; it’s available here.