I have two articles just released in their final form.
One, with James Heilpern, examines how “subject to the jurisdiction” was used in legal texts in the United States through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Making use of treaties, statutes, congressional debates, and judicial opinions, the article considers whether that language, which was used in the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, had an established legal meaning that would have been known to the legal community in 1868. If so, what might that meaning be?
From the conclusion of that article:
The task of this Article is a narrow one. We do not investigate the specific intentions of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment or examine their specific purposes in including the Citizenship Clause. We simply ask to what degree did the drafters of that Clause use familiar legal terms and what would have been the ordinary meaning of those terms as used in a legal text. The evidence is overwhelming that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” would have had a natural and obvious meaning to mid-nineteenth century American lawyers. These were ordinary legal terms that regularly appeared in legal discourse.
Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming as well as to what the substantive content of that language would have been in 1866. In the legal language of the mid-nineteenth century, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States simply meant governed by the United States. That governing authority might have been exclusive or shared, and those subject to that governing authority might have owed a duty of allegiance or they might merely have owed a duty of obedience. Those governed by the United States might be subject to American jurisdiction on a more permanent basis or they might only be subject to that governing authority on a contingent and temporary basis. Those governed by the United States might only be subject to its authority for limited purposes or they might be governed by it more comprehensively. When lawyers wanted to restrict the scope of jurisdiction, they used appropriate modifiers to do so. Using the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to express any idea other than “within the governing authority” would have been creative to the point of absurdity.
That article is now available from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy here.
The second examines Indiana’s statutory intellectual diversity mandate, known as Senate Bill 202. The law requires that professors teaching in state universities in Indiana demonstrate, among other things, that their courses include an intellectually diverse set of materials in order to retain their jobs. It charges the board of regents to use the tenure process to enforce this requirement. As written, the statute poses a multitude of difficulties for academic freedom and the intellectual enterprise of university teaching.
SB 202 might identify a real concern about American higher education, but the
solution it offers is not only ineffective but problematic. SB 202 creates a vague set
of tenure criteria that can easily be misused to target politically controversial
professors. The result is unlikely to improve the quality of classroom teaching or
genuinely foster a climate of free inquiry on university campuses, but it might lead
professors to cater to the loudest cavilers in an effort to insulate themselves from
capricious reprisals.
That article is based on the Addison C. Harris Lecture at the Maurer School of Law and is now available in the Indiana Law Journal here.
