E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Constitutional Law and “Common Sense” Gun and Drug Regulation
David Pozen
For the Supreme
Court Review, Joseph Blocher and I have a new paper that diagnoses a mismatch
between the growing scholarly consensus on gun and drug regulation (generally
favoring pragmatic approaches focused on reducing harms)
and the constitutional rights doctrine on these subjects (generally either
maximalist or minimalist). The Court’s most recent Second Amendment decisions
are the point of departure. Here is the abstract for The Excluded Middle of
Law: Constitutional Drivers of Extremism in Gun and Drug Policy, a draft of
which is now up on SSRN:
American drug and gun
regulation is difficult to defend from almost any perspective. Federal and
state laws heap criminal penalties on a small subset of users, burden many
others whose possession poses no direct threat to third parties, and yet fail
to prevent staggering social harms. To address these pathologies, a long line
of scholars and advocates has called for something in between punitive
prohibitionism and laissez-faire capitalism: grudging toleration, harm
reduction, liberty balancing, community-based alternatives, and so on. Among
the forces pushing policy away from these pragmatic approaches, however, is
U.S. constitutional doctrine.
Using the Supreme
Court’s decisions in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez
as a jumping-off point, this Article explores the role of constitutional law in
driving drug and gun policy to the extremes. Hemani holds out hope for
limited forms of pragmatism to sneak into Second Amendment analysis through the
side door. But in nearly inverse ways, the Article argues, the Court’s
jurisprudence has complicated efforts in both fields to reach a more effective
and humane regulatory middle ground.