FOREWORDSUMMARY OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CASESTABLE OF AUTHORITIES EXPLANATORY NOTEACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PERMISSION TO REPRINT CHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONCHAPTER IIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY: THE INTERRELATION OF THE STATE AND FEDERALCONSTITUTIONS A. INTRODUCTION B. THE SOURCES AND NATURE OF FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS.1. Exclusive Federal PowersGONZALES v. RAICH NOTE NFIB v. SEBELIUS CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES 2. Exclusive State Powers 3. Overlapping and Shared Powers UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ C. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL POWER 1. The Anti-Commandeering Principle PRINTZ v. UNITED STATES NOTE 2. Immunity from Suits under Federal Law ALDEN v. MAINEFRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATTNOTE D. FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON STATE POWER 1. Article VI – The Supremacy Clause U.S. TERM LIMITS, INC. v. THORNTON GREGORY v. ASHCROFT 2. Article IV COYLE v. SMITH NOTE LUTHER v. BORDENPACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. OREGON CHAPTER IIITHEORIES BY WHICH STATE COURTS MAY CONSTRUE STATECONSTITUTIONS DIFFERENTLY FROM THEIR FEDERAL COUNTERPARTSA. SIMILARLY WORDED GUARANTEESSITZ v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE NOTESSTATE v. HEMPELE STATE v. WRIGHT NOTEBLUM v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NOTESB. DIFFERENTLY WORDED PROVISIONSRACING ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL IOWA v. FITZGERALD NOTES. STATE v. JORDEN STATE v. MIXTON C. STATE GUARANTEES MAY OFFER MORE OR FEWER PROTECTIONSTHAN THEIR FEDERAL COUNTERPARTSSTATE v. SCOTTIZE DANYELLE BROWNNOTED. INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS: STATE COURTRULINGS THAT ADDRESS FEDERAL AND STATE BASES FORDECISIONOHIO v. ROBINETTE (Ohio 1995)OHIO v. ROBINETTE (U.S. 1996)OHIO v. ROBINETTE (Ohio 1997)NOTESE. SEQUENCING: THE ORDER IN WHICH STATE COURTS RESOLVERELATED STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIMS AND THE PRIORITY GIVENTO EACHJeffrey S. Sutton, What Does—and Does Not—Ail State ConstitutionalLawCHAPTER IVEQUALITYA. INTRODUCTIONJeffrey M. Shaman, Equality and Liberty in The Golden Age of StateConstitutional LawB. RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONSSHEFF v. O’NEILLNOTEMALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH NOTES.C. GENDER-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS COMMONWEALTH v. PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICASSOCIATIONNOTESTATE v. RIVERANOTES.D. AGE-BASED CLASSIFICATIONS DRISCOLL v. CORBETTNOTESARNESON v. STATEE. SEXUAL-ORIENTATION CLASSIFICATIONSGARTNER v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHF. ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATIONSAFSCME IOWA COUNCIL 61 v. STATE NOTECHAPTER VREPRESENTATION AND VOTING A. INTRODUCTION B. CREATING ELECTION DISTRICTSLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PA. v. PENNSYLVANIA NOTESHARPER v. HALLJOHNSON v. WISCONSIN ELECTIONS COMMISSION HARKENRIDER v. HOCHUL NOTESNORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE v. MOORE NOTEC. REGULATING ELECTIONS1. Voter ID LitigationLEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WISCONSIN EDUCATION NETWORKv. WALKER MILWAUKEE BRANCH OF THE NAACP v. WALKERNOTEMARTIN v. KOHLS2. Mail-In Voting McLINKO v. DEPARTMENT OF STATENOTES3. The Role of a State “Legislature” in Regulating ElectionsARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEP. REDISTRICTINGCOMM’NNOTESCHAPTER VIDUE PROCESS OF LAW A. INTRODUCTION B. PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES STATE v. VEALE M.E.K. v. R.L.KC. REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMYDAVIS v. DAVISNOTEIn re T.W NOTEHODES & NAUSER, MDs, P.A. v. SCHMIDT NOTEPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND, INC. v. REYNOLDS exrel. STATED. THE RIGHT OF INTIMATE ASSOCIATIONSTATE v. SAUNDERSNOTECOMMONWEALTH v. WASSON NOTEE. CIVIL UNIONBAKER v. STATENOTESF. MARRIAGEGOODRIDGE v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHNOTESG. THE RIGHTS OF BODILY INTEGRITY AND DOMESTIC PRIVACYMatter of FARRELLKRISCHER v. McIVER RAVIN v. STATE NOTESH. VESTED RIGHTSMITCHELL v. ROBERTSCHAPTER VIICRIMINAL PROCEDUREA. RIGHT TO JURY TRIALCLAUDIO v. STATENOTESSMITH v. ISAKSONB. SELF-INCRIMINATIONCOMMONWEALTH v. MOLINANOTESELLIOTT v. GEORGIAC. RIGHT TO COUNSEL STATE v. McADAMS NOTESD. CONFRONTATION – FACE TO FACECOMMONWEALTH v. LUDWIG NOTESE. DUTY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE HAMMOND v. STATE NOTESF. DOUBLE JEOPARDYPEOPLE v. ARANDANOTESG. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTWASHINGTON v. GREGORY STATE v. SANTIAGONOTESH. POST-CONVICTION RELIEFBROWN v. BOOKER NOTES.CHAPTER VIIISEARCH AND SEIZUREA. INTRODUCTION B. PROBABLE CAUSE PEOPLE v. GRIMINGER STATE v. TUTTLE NOTESC. GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT STATE v. KOIVU COMMONWEALTH v. EDMUNDSNOTES.D. AUTOMATIC STANDING STATE v. LAMBSTATE v. BULLOCKNOTEE. WARRANT REQUIREMENTSTATE v. EARLSSTATE v. BRYANT STATE v. LEONARDNOTESF. PHYSICAL SEIZURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL BY POLICESTATE v. BEAUCHESNE NOTESG. WARRANTLESS AUTOMOBILE SEARCHSTATE v. CORASTATE v. VILLELA NOTES.STATE v. ARREOLA-BOTELLOH. MIRANDA VIOLATION – PHYSICAL EVIDENCE EXCLUDED STATE v. PETERSONNOTESCHAPTER IXPROPERTY RIGHTSA. INTRODUCTION B. WHAT IS PROPERTY?TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY v. VILLARREALC. TAKINGS PROVISIONS AND THE KELO STORYCITY OF NORWOOD v. HORNEYBD. OF CTY. COMM’RS OF MUSKOGEE CNTY. v. LOWERY GOLDSTEIN v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEV. CORPNOTESD. WHAT IS “JUST COMPENSATION”? BAYOU BRIDGE PIPELINE, LLC v. 38.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,LOCATED IN ST. MARTIN PARISH, ET ALNOTEE. OTHER PROPERTY-RELATED RIGHTS UNDER STATECONSTITUTIONSPATEL v. TEXAS DEP’T OF LICENSINGTEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES v. CROWNDISTRIBUTING LLC CHAPTER XRELIGION CLAUSES A. FREEDOM OF RELIGION EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH NOTESCITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES NOTESHUMPHREY v. LANEATTORNEY GENERAL v. DESILETS NOTES.BARR v. CITY OF SINTONCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ALBANY v. SERIONOTESB. ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION1. BackgroundMark Edward DeForrest, An Overview and Evaluation of State BlaineAmendments: Origins, Scope, and First Amendment Concerns2. CasesTRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC. v. COMER FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUND. v. MORRIS CNTY. BD. OFCHOSEN FREEHOLDERS TAYLOR v. TOWN OF CABOT NOTESZELMAN v. SIMMONS-HARRIS JACKSON v. BENSONNOTETAXPAYERS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION v. DOUGLAS CNTY. SCHOOLDISTRICTCAIN v. HORNE MEREDITH v. PENCE NOTES.MOSES v. RUSZKOWSKINOTECHAPTER XISCHOOL FUNDING CLAUSES A. INTRODUCTION B. EQUAL PROTECTION DECISIONSHORNBECK v. SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATIONHORTON v. MESKILLVINCENT v. VOIGHTNOTEC. ADEQUACY DECISIONS EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KIRBYDeROLPH v. STATE (Ohio 1997)DeROLPH v. STATE (Ohio 2001)NOTECOLUMBIA FALLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 v.STATE ABBOTT v. BURKE NOTES.CITIZENS FOR STRONG SCHOOLS, INC. v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OFEDUCATIONNOTESD. SCHOOL UNIFORMITY CLAUSESBUSH v. HOLMESE. TEACHER TENURE VERGARA v. CALIFORNIAF. REMEDY HOKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. STATECLAREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GOVERNOR NEELEY v. WEST ORANGE-COVE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENTSCHOOL DISTRICT NOTECHAPTER XIICIVIL REMEDIES: THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY AND OPEN COURTS; THE RIGHTTO A JURY TRIAL; SEPARATION OF POWERS; OTHER POSSIBLE CLAIMSA. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDShannon M. Roesler, The Kansas Remedy by Due Course of Law Provision:Defining a Right to a RemedyKENTUCKY v. CLAYCOMBB. CASES DEFINING THE RIGHT TO A REMEDY/OPEN COURTS MELLO v. BIG Y FOODS, INC. YANAKOS v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER, ETAL. McINTOSH v. MELROE CONOTESLANEY v. FAIRVIEW CITYTINDLEY v. SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTESC. JURY TRIAL RIGHTS (AND OTHER POTENTIAL CHALLENGES) UNDERSTATE CONSTITUTIONS – ARE STATUTORY DAMAGES CAPSCONSTITUTIONAL? HILBURN v. ENERPIPE LTDMcCLAY v. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLCD. IS THERE AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO A STATE REMEDY? FIELDS v. MELLINGERNOTESCHAPTER XIIIOTHER STATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS A. PRIVACYYORK v. WAHKIAKUM SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 200.NOTEB. FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSIONFASHION VALLEY MALL v. NLRBNOTESTATE v. STUMMERNOTES.C. CIVIL JURY TRIALSOFIE v. FIBREBOARD CORP NOTEMcCOOL v. GEHRETNOTESD. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMSROCKY MOUNTAIN GUN OWNERS v. POLISJANE DOE v. WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITYSTATE v. MISCH NOTESE. ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FOUND. v.COMMONWEALTHNOTES.F. CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTSSTATE v. STROMSTATE v. DAMATO-KUSHEL.NOTES.G. RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH CABOT v. THOMAS NOTEH. NATURAL OR INALIENABLE RIGHTSI. UNENUMERATED RIGHTS.CHAPTER XIVLEGISLATIVE PROCESS PROVISIONS WITH NO FEDERALCOUNTERPARTSA. INTRODUCTION B. SINGLE SUBJECT AND CLEAR TITLE RULES Martha J. Dragich, State Constitutional Restriction on Legislative Procedure:Rethinking the Analysis of Original Purpose, Single Subject, and ClearTitle ChallengesGREGORY v. SHURTLEFFKOUSSA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL BURNS v. CLINE NOTETURNBULL v. FINKNOTEC. PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENTSMAREADY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM HOPPER v. CITY OF MADISONTOWN OF BELOIT v. COUNTY OF ROCKCHAPTER XVORGANIZATION OF STATE GOVERNMENTSA. INTRODUCTION B. LEGISLATIVE POWER1. Introduction2. Term Limits for State and Local Officials HOERGER v. SPOTA TELLI v. BROWARD COUNTY KEMP ET AL. v. GONZALEZ ET ALNOTES.3. Legislative Process and Procedures OPINION OF THE JUSTICES MARKWELL v. COOKE C. EXECUTIVE POWER1. The Selection and Organization of the Executive PERDUE v. BAKERNOTESTATE v. STEPHENS DUNLEAVY v. THE ALASKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2. The “Line Item” Veto Power ST. JOHN’S WELL CHILD & FAMILY CTR. v. SCHWARZENEGGERJACKSON v. SANFORDHOMAN v. BRANSTAD NOTES.D. JUDICIAL POWER 1. The Selection of Judges Judith L. Maute, Selecting Justice in State Courts: The Ballot Box or theBackroom? NOTESBROWN v. GIANFORTE2. Justiciability in State CourtsGREGORY v. SHURTLEFFBENSON v. McKEE COUEY v. ATKINS In re GUARDIANSHIP OF TSCHUMY BERRY v. CRAWFORD In re ABBOTT BURT v. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSTATE OF KANSAS ex rel. MORRISON v. SEBELIUSOPINION OF THE JUSTICES 3. Certified Questions LEHMAN BROTHERS v. SCHEIN HALEY v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE-KNOXVILLE4. State Limitations on Judicial Tenure and Service CANTRELL v. STATE E. SEPARATION OF POWERS STATE ex rel. JUSTICE v. KINGIn re REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION FROM HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES CHAPTER XVIADMINISTRATIVE LAW A. INTRODUCTION B. NONDELEGATION A.L.A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. v. UNITED STATES NOTEGUNDY v. UNITED STATESNOTES.McNEILL v. STATEIn re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM U.S. DISTRICT COURTASKEW v. CROSS KEY WATERWAYS NOTEGUILLOU v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DIVISION OF MOTORVEHICLESTEXAS BOLL WEEVIL ERADICATION FOUNDATION, INC. v.LEWELLENNOTEIn re PETITION TO TRANSFER TERRITORY FROM HIGH SCHOOLDISTRICT NO. 6, LAME DEER, ROSEBUD COUNTY, TO HIGHSCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, HARDIN, BIG HORN COUNTY C. JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CHEVRON v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILNOTETETRA TECH v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUENOTEKING v. MISSISSIPPI MILITARY DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY CO., INC. v. DIPASQUALENOTECHAPTER XVIILOCAL GOVERNMENTS A. CASES INVALIDATING STATE LAWS ON HOME RULE GROUNDS CITY OF DAYTON v. STATENOTEDWAGFYS MANUFACTURING, INC. v. CITY OF TOPEKA COOPERATIVE HOME CARE, INC. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS B. CASES REJECTING HOME-RULE CHALLENGES TO STATE LAWS <