113 Yale L.J. 1663 (2004)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the Supreme Court has frequently observed that most statutes involve compromise. In particular, when Congress enacts a clear and precise statutory text--one that articulates not only a set of relevant aims but also the specific means of their pursuit--the Court has assumed that the operative details of such a statute may reflect a (frequently unrecorded) compromise to go so far and no farther in pursuit of its background goals. Accordingly, even when a precise statute seems over- or underinclusive in relation to its ultimate aims (as is often the case), the Court now hews closely to the rules embedded in the enacted text, rather than adjusting that text to make it more consistent with its apparent purposes.

One might think that similar principles would apply with equal, if not greater, force to constitutional interpretation. The constitutional lawmaking processes prescribed by Articles V and VII reflect a conscious design to give political (or at least geographical) minorities extraordinary power to block constitutional change. Such political minorities, therefore, also have extraordinary power to insist upon compromise as the price of assent. Although constitutional scholarship tends to emphasize those constitutional texts that are framed in open-ended terms, many of the document's clauses--including some rather important ones--articulate their policies at a level of detail that suggests compromise over the acceptable means of pursuing such clauses' apparent background aims. In this Article, I argue that, just as in the case of statutes, when the Court confronts a precise and detailed constitutional text, it should adhere closely to the prescribed solution rather than stretch or contract the text in light of the apparent ratio legis. Indeed, the heightened protection assigned to minority interests in the amendment process may make it especially crucial for a court to adhere to the compromises embedded in a precise constitutional text.

113 Yale L.J. 1753 (2004)

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a campaign of aggressive preventive detention. Invoking Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General announced that just as Kennedy would arrest a mobster for "spitting on the sidewalk," so he, Ashcroft, would use every law in his power, including the immigration laws, to apprehend "suspected terrorists," lock them up, and prevent the next terrorist attack. As of January 2004, the government had detained more than 5000 foreign nationals through its antiterrorism efforts. By any measure, the program has been spectacularly unsuccessful. None of these detainees has been determined to be involved with al Qaeda or the September 11 conspiracy. Only three have been charged with any terrorism-related crime, and two of those three were acquitted of the terrorism charges. The lone conviction--for conspiring to support some unspecified terrorist activity in the unspecified future--has been called into question by the revelation that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that its principal witness had lied on the stand.

In June 2003, the Justice Department's own Inspector General issued a sharply critical report on the preventive detention campaign, finding, among other things, that people were detained and treated as "of interest" to the September 11 investigation on such information as an anonymous tip that there were "too many" Middle Eastern men working in a convenience store. Many were initially arrested without charges at all; over seven hundred of the arrests remain secret to this day; and more than six hundred detainees charged with immigration violations were tried in secret, without any showing that any information involved in their immigration hearings was classified. The vast majority were not only not charged with a terrorist crime, but were affirmatively cleared of any connection to terrorism by the FBI. Virtually all of the detainees were from predominantly Arab countries.

113 Yale L.J. 1909 (2004)

I. THE NEED TO REASSESS REGULATED RIPARIANISM

Until recently, the eastern United States has been blessed with an abundance of water; unlike the arid West, shortages in the East have historically been "rare and short-lived." During the past few decades, however, water has increasingly become scarce, due to recurring droughts and burgeoning urban and suburban populations. A severe drought struck the East Coast in 2002, forcing residents in rural Maine to stop flushing toilets and washing dishes, significantly damaging crops in the Midwest, and leading New Jersey to ban lawn watering. But that drought was only the latest and harshest of several that have hit the region since the 1980s. Rapid population growth and commercial development in and around eastern cities have also contributed to shortages, in some cases leading to interstate disputes. Scientists predict that erratic precipitation patterns will persist, producing recurring droughts in years to come; continued growth in demand will only exacerbate the consequences of weather shifts.

For policymakers, water shortages present three central challenges. First and most obviously, scarcity reminds us of the limits of our natural resources, and forces us to consider conservation measures. Second, scarcity requires that we assess the efficiency of water allocation and usage. Third--especially in the context of water, a universally necessary resource--equity demands that basic needs be met, and that one group of users not be allowed to exclude another group from an essential resource. In recent decades, water shortages have compelled eastern lawmakers to face these three issues--conservation, efficiency, and equity--directly. The result has been growing dissatisfaction with the legal regime that had historically governed the distribution of water rights in the East: common law riparianism.

113 Yale L.J. 1991 (2004)

United States v. Bird, 287 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Avants, 278 F.3d 510 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 968 (2002).

In Texas v. Cobb, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific" and attaches only to charged offenses. Prior to Cobb, lower courts had created an exception to this rule, holding that the right to counsel also attached to any additional uncharged crimes that were "factually related" to a specific charged offense. But Cobb rejected this exception and held that "offense" in the right-to-counsel context is synonymous with "offense" in the double jeopardy context. For double jeopardy purposes, a single criminal act that violates both state and federal law constitutes two separate offenses, because it violates the laws of two separate sovereigns. Thus, read literally, Cobb implies that the right to counsel can attach to a charged offense against one sovereign, but not to the same (uncharged) offense against a different sovereign.

113 Yale L.J. 2007 (2004)

Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2003).

In INS v. St. Cyr, the Supreme Court rejected Congress's attempt to foreclose judicial review in various provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996. The St. Cyr Court held that Congress must be extraordinarily explicit whenever it intends for legislation to strip courts of the jurisdiction to hear any class of habeas petitions, including the deportation-related claims that AEDPA and IIRIRA sought to restrict. Such a "superclear" statement, the Court concluded, was needed to avoid the potential constitutional problem posed by the Suspension Clause, which bars foreclosure of habeas "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."