Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond v. United States and Erie’s Constitutional Source

Authors

Kermit Roosevelt III, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2013

Abstract

This article begins by asking what constitutional provision is violated by the enforcement of law without a lawmaker. Taking a positivist view—i.e., that law does not exist without a lawmaker—it concludes that the problem of law without a lawmaker collapses into the problem of coercion without law. Coercion without law violates the Due Process Clause in an obvious way: it is deprivation of something “without … law.” The article then explores the existence of this form of substantive due process in American law, arguing that we find it in three somewhat surprising places: Lochner-era substantive due process; modern federalism cases like Morrison, Lopez, and Bond; and Erie itself. Erie’s constitutional source, it concludes, is the Due Process Clause.

Keywords

Constitutional law, coercion, substantive due process of law, Lochner, federalism, Erie v. Tompkins, federal common law, overbreadth, third-party standing, states’ rights

Publication Title

William & Mary Law Review

Publication Citation

54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 987 (2013)

Repository Citation

Roosevelt, Kermit III, "Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond v. United States and Erie’s Constitutional Source" (2013). All Faculty Scholarship. 398.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/398