<?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, 10 May 2012 03:52:20 +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>Certiorari Granted in Reichle v. Howards: A First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Case</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/03/29/certiorari-granted-in-reichle-v-howards-a-first-amendment-retaliatory-arrest-case/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/03/29/certiorari-granted-in-reichle-v-howards-a-first-amendment-retaliatory-arrest-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:32:08 +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=1341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Question Suppose a police officer arrests a person with objective probable cause to arrest but with the subjective motivation to arrest him because of something he said, in violation of the First Amendment? Does the Fourth Amendment probable cause determination have any bearing on the section 1983 First Amendment claim [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1341&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/03/29/certiorari-granted-in-reichle-v-howards-a-first-amendment-retaliatory-arrest-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>The Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: A Video Presentation</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/24/the-constitutionality-of-the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-a-video-presentation/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/24/the-constitutionality-of-the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-a-video-presentation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>snahmod</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nahmodlaw.com/?p=1305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 18, 2012, I blogged about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PDF) whose constitutionality is currently before the Supreme Court. In that post, I focused on the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate. On February 10, 2012, I participated in an hour-long discussion of the overall constitutionality of the Act at a [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1305&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/24/the-constitutionality-of-the-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-a-video-presentation/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>Messerschmidt v. Millender: A New Qualified Immunity Search Warrant Decision</title>
		<link>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/21/certiorari-granted-in-messerschmidt-v-millender-a-new-qualified-immunity-search-warrant-case/</link>
		<comments>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/21/certiorari-granted-in-messerschmidt-v-millender-a-new-qualified-immunity-search-warrant-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:52:58 +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=1188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Certiorari Granted in Messerschmidt v. Millender (updated: see below for decision handed down 2-22-12) This Term the Supreme Court will decide Messerschmidt v. Millender, 131 S. Ct. &#8212; (2011)(No. 10-704), granting certiorari in Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2009)(en banc), which deals with the following Questions Presented: (1) Whether police [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=nahmodlaw.com&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1188&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nahmodlaw.com/2012/02/21/certiorari-granted-in-messerschmidt-v-millender-a-new-qualified-immunity-search-warrant-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>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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1279&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1252&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1059&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=1037&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=906&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=834&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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&#038;blog=8604426&#038;post=822&#038;subd=nahmodlaw&#038;ref=&#038;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>
	</channel>
</rss>
