<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nahmod Law &#187; Constitutional Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nahmodlaw.com/category/constitutional-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nahmodlaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:55:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='nahmodlaw.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://nahmodlaw.com/osd.xml" title="Nahmod Law" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://nahmodlaw.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>New Supreme Court Religion Decision: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/02/new-supreme-court-religion-decision-hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/02/new-supreme-court-religion-decision-hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.wordpress.com/?p=1279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Rare Unanimous Religion Clauses Decision by the Supreme Court It is rare for the Justices of the Supreme Court to hand down a unanimous decision in a Religion Clauses case. But it happened on January 11, 2012, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. &#8212; (2012). This case involved the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=1279&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/02/new-supreme-court-religion-decision-hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: The Commerce Clause and Constitutional Trust</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/01/18/the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-the-commerce-clause-and-constitutional-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/01/18/the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-the-commerce-clause-and-constitutional-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=1252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I blogged over two years ago on the Commerce Clause&#8211;see post of September 26, 2009&#8211;where I provided a doctrinal and historical perspective that readers might want to consult for background. The Florida Case and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act In this post I want to say some things about the high-profile case currently [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=1252&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/01/18/the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-the-commerce-clause-and-constitutional-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>DeShaney in the Circuits: Affirmative Duties and Danger-Creation</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/08/22/deshaney-in-the-circuits-affirmative-duties-and-danger-creation/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/08/22/deshaney-in-the-circuits-affirmative-duties-and-danger-creation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights - Section 1983]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=1059</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE BLOG IS BACK! Introduction: The DeShaney case In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), a tragic case involving an attempt under section 1983 and substantive due process to hold social service officials personally liable in damages for their failure to prevent a father from physically abusing his infant son, the Supreme Court ruled [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=1059&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/08/22/deshaney-in-the-circuits-affirmative-duties-and-danger-creation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: New Supreme Court § 1983 Public Employee Petition Clause Case</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/07/08/borough-of-duryea-v-guarnieri-new-supreme-court-%c2%a7-1983-public-employee-petition-clause-case/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/07/08/borough-of-duryea-v-guarnieri-new-supreme-court-%c2%a7-1983-public-employee-petition-clause-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights - Section 1983]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=1037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri: § 1983, Public Employees and the Petition Clause The Supreme Court in 2011 handed down Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. &#8212; (2011), which expressly rejected the minority position of the Third Circuit&#8211;see San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 1994)&#8211;and adopted that of the other circuits. [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=1037&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/07/08/borough-of-duryea-v-guarnieri-new-supreme-court-%c2%a7-1983-public-employee-petition-clause-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Article: Justice Souter on Government Speech</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/03/28/article-justice-souter-on-government-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/03/28/article-justice-souter-on-government-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=906</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since August 27, 2010, I have published nine posts dealing with the First Amendment topic of government speech and now-retired Justice David Souter&#8216;s engagement with the topic. The government speech doctrine began in the Supreme Court with Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)&#8211;see post of September 7, 2010&#8211;handed down in Justice Souter&#8217;s first term, [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=906&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/03/28/article-justice-souter-on-government-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government Speech and Justice Souter (9): A Short Coda</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/01/18/government-speech-and-justice-souter-9-a-short-coda/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/01/18/government-speech-and-justice-souter-9-a-short-coda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=834</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Souter could not have imagined in his first year on the Court that Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), which he joined&#8211;see post of September 7, 2010&#8211;would be transformed into the paradigmatic government speech case. He also could not have foreseen where the government speech doctrine would lead. As his views on government [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=834&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2011/01/18/government-speech-and-justice-souter-9-a-short-coda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government Speech and Justice Souter (8): Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/30/government-speech-and-justice-souter-8-pleasant-grove-city-v-summum/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/30/government-speech-and-justice-souter-8-pleasant-grove-city-v-summum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pleasant Grove City v. Summum: Justice Souter&#8217;s Last Government Speech Opinion In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, held that a city&#8217;s rejection of a privately donated monument offered by the Summum sect for permanent display in a public park did not violate [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=822&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/30/government-speech-and-justice-souter-8-pleasant-grove-city-v-summum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government Speech and Justice Souter (7): Garcetti v. Ceballos</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/03/government-speech-and-justice-souter-7-garcetti-v-ceballos/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/03/government-speech-and-justice-souter-7-garcetti-v-ceballos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Souter&#8217;s Penultimate Government Speech Case: Garcetti v. Ceballos In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), an exceptionally important public employee free speech case discussed at greater length in a prior post, the Court held that a deputy district attorney’s First Amendment rights were not violated when he was allegedly retaliated against by his [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=795&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/12/03/government-speech-and-justice-souter-7-garcetti-v-ceballos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Review: 2009 Term (video)</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/23/supreme-court-review-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/23/supreme-court-review-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scotus Review: The 2009 Term On October 29, 2010, my colleague, Professor Christopher Schmidt, and I presented a review of the Supreme Court&#8216;s important decisions from its 2009 Term (through June, 2010). Our presentations took place at Chicago-Kent and were sponsored by the Kent chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society. Kent&#8217;s [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=786&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/23/supreme-court-review-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/snahmod/classes/weblogvideos/nahmodSCreview09.ram" length="62" type="audio/x-realaudio" />
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://forms.real.com/rndl/images/real_logo.gif" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Animal Cruelty, Crush Videos and U.S. v. Stevens (Video)</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/12/animal-cruelty-u-s-v-stevens-and-the-first-amendment-a-video-presentation/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/12/animal-cruelty-u-s-v-stevens-and-the-first-amendment-a-video-presentation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I spoke about animal cruelty, crush videos and the Supreme Court&#8216;s First Amendment decision in U.S. v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010), on October 21, 2010, at the Chicago Bar Association. I was asked to do so by the CBA&#8217;s Animal Law Committee. My videotaped presentation, which I am pleased to make available to [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&amp;blog=8604426&amp;post=762&amp;subd=nahmodlaw&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2010/11/12/animal-cruelty-u-s-v-stevens-and-the-first-amendment-a-video-presentation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/snahmod/classes/weblogvideos/nahmodanimalcruelty.ram" length="60" type="audio/x-realaudio" />
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/80cc17d0084ce3d8f14f3450d3799421?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Professor Nahmod</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://forms.real.com/rndl/images/real_logo.gif" medium="image" />
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
