Note

Constitutional Avoidance: The Single Subject Rule as an Interpretive Principle

The single subject rule, which prohibits bills from containing more than one “subject,” is in place in forty-three state constitutions and has existed since the nineteenth century. It is frequently litigated and has led to many high-profile laws being invalidated or severed. Although the policy rationales behind the rule are well known and largely agreed upon, applying the rule has proven challenging. Courts have struggled to formulate coherent doctrine for what constitutes a distinct “subject,” as demonstrated by the myriad of vague, malleable tests developed by state courts. As a result, single subject rule jurisprudence suffers from fundamental flaws, including unpredictable, arbitrary decision making and high enforcement costs.

This Note posits that the single subject rule’s enforcement problems stem from courts’ perception of it exclusively as a substantive rule to prevent logrolling and to further other policy goals. This Note proposes an alternative conception of the single subject rule: as an interpretive principle based on the canon of avoidance of constitutional doubt. Approaching single subject rule adjudication in this way would allow courts to enforce the principles of the single subject rule without having to precisely define the contours of a statute’s “subjects,” thus averting many of the difficulties in applying the rule. Employing the rule as an interpretive tool would also allow courts to uphold a law while still enforcing the single subject rule by narrowly construing the law’s various ambiguous provisions. In this way, it would help courts skirt the negative consequences that may result from severing or invalidating popularly enacted statutes and initiatives.

Toward an International Right Against Self-Incrimination: Expanding the Fifth Amendment’s “Compelled” to Foreign Compulsion

Today, the United States is routinely involved in cross-border criminal investigations. Unlike just a few years ago, however, foreign nations have begun their own investigations as well, in many instances probing the same (mis)conduct as the United States. While a welcomed change to some, intersections between U.S. and foreign investigations have triggered novel constitutional issues for American actors. For the first time, this Note will discuss a question that arises from these intersections: is testimony independently compelled by a foreign sovereign, under threat of sanction, “compelled” under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment?

This Note argues that it is. To arrive at this conclusion, this Note first engages with the same-sovereign rule, a rule endorsed by the Supreme Court’s recent venture into the extraterritoriality of the Fifth Amendment. Finding that the rule creates an interpretive tension with other terms in the Self-Incrimination Clause (the “Clause”), this Note suggests an alternative rule, one that achieves harmony among terms within the Clause. Following this interpretation, this Note argues that foreign compulsion triggers the Fifth Amendment, even when the United States is in no way involved in the compulsion.

After finding that foreign compulsion is “compelled,” this Note moves on to decide how American courts should treat that testimony. While testimony compelled by U.S. authorities is owed use and derivative use immunity, this Note, upon noting the lack of absolute commitment to any one immunity standard in the Court’s precedents, decides if a lesser immunity standard, such as use only immunity, is more fitting. Acknowledging the weighty concerns to the contrary, this Note concludes that foreign-compelled testimony is owed use and derivative use immunity, but with the caveat that the government may make nonevidentiary uses of foreign-compelled testimony.

Do Your Duty (!)(?) The Distribution of Power in the Appointments Clause

Judge Merrick Garland’s thwarted Supreme Court nomination has divided legal scholars over the meaning of the Appointments Clause. While some believe that the Senate and the President share the power to appoint principal officers, others contend that the President alone has the power to nominate and appoint them. To the former scholars, Article II, Section 2, enables the President to nominate whomever he or she wishes, but it also empowers the Senate to confirm or reject whomever it wishes. Accordingly, the appointment power is divided between the two, meaning it is only exercised when both branches utilize their respective and discretionary powers. To the latter scholars, the same text gives the President the sole power to nominate and to appoint, with appointment subject to the Senate’s mandatory duty to advise and decide on whether to consent. Therefore, advice and consent is a check by which the Senate prevents the President from abusing his or her appointment power, triggered by the President’s decision to nominate. This Note argues that the latter scholars are correct because the Founders’ intent, the Constitution’s text, the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances, and long-standing Senate practice indicate that the appointment power is solely a presidential power. For Judge Garland, this conclusion means the Senate violated its duty to hold hearings and to provide an opportunity for a vote on his nomination. More importantly for the nation, it means that the Appointments Clause requires the Senate to apply to every nominee the process that it has designed for securing its consent. Thus, the precedent established by the 114th Senate of blocking all Supreme Court nominations during presidential election years, which will likely be followed and perhaps extended to mid-term election years, contravenes the nation’s fundamental constitutional structure. By failing to perform its duty, moreover, the 114th Senate also deprived the nation of the benefits that the advice and consent process provides, such as greater accountability for the Senate’s confirmation or rejection of nominations and a more functional government. In doing so, the Senate has placed political expediency ahead of the public interest.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.