Reposted by Jonathan Shaub
Aaron is not underrating this. It's cinema.
The sly smirk when Schmitt thinks he's gotten Smith to perjure himself. The hasty vanishing of the sign. Klobuchar getting Kennedy to hold it up. Schmitt getting LOUD and ANGRY when Klobuchar points out he mixed up the Hawks and Hawkeyes.
![Emerging Issues in State Constitutional Law
Though the modern focus on state constitutions really began in the 1970s, state constitutions have taken on new relevance in the modern era. As the protection of some rights and liberties has eroded at the federal level, advocates have seen success at the state level, either with judicial decisions or formal constitutional amendments. Voters have successfully used their powers of initiative and referendum to adopt far-reaching reforms to their state governments—perhaps most notably, to create nonpartisan redistricting commissions. Today, as democracy and representative government both face threats, new issues continue to arise. The Section invites potential contributors to reflect on some of the modern issues that relate to state constitutions, which may include answers to the following questions:
• How effective has the move to litigate rights under state constitutions been? What interpretative modalities should judges use when construing state constitutional rights?
• How should judges undertake the task of deciding questions under state systems of separated powers? Here, too, what is the appropriate modality for answering these questions?
• Can state constitutions be used to thwart power plays at the state level? Is there a risk that they may encourage certain power plays?
• What can state constitutions do to respond to abuses by the federal government?
Submissions should be sent to the Chair-elect of the Committee, Quinn Yeargain, at yeargain@law.msu.edu, by Friday, September 11, 2026, at 11:59 PM. Please indicate “AALS Emerging Issues Submission [LASTNAME]” as the subject line of the email. Submissions should include abstracts of no more than 500 words summarizing what the contributor will discuss. The submission does not have to relate to a forthcoming work or a work-in-progress, although it may. In the body of the email, please include your name and institution (and your affiliation).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q3dycka5ce2gybcbau5gfehd/bafkreigktbzrikhhbzkkghriayxn37uaneldhyqvvn3aztq3ytnnzudxfy)
![Works-in-Progress Panel
The Section invites submissions of early-, mid-, and late-stage works-in-progress, which may relate to any aspect of state constitutional law. Preference will be given to earlier-stage faculty members, fellows, and VAPs, though all are invited to submit. Submissions should be sent to the Chair-elect of the Committee, Quinn Yeargain, at yeargain@law.msu.edu, by September 11, 2026. Please indicate “AALS WIP Submission [LASTNAME]” as the subject line of the email.
Submissions should include abstracts of no more than 500 words. In the body of the email, please include your name, your name, institution (and your affiliation), and the state of the project (e.g., early-stage or final draft).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q3dycka5ce2gybcbau5gfehd/bafkreiezfd36j3t4uji3pfchvrbh25p7dncqgho233zg4qqbfg7pocok7u)
![TEXTUAL (IN)DIFFERENCE IN STATE SEARCHAND-SEIZURE PROVISIONS
Quinn Yeargain
ABSTRACT—Over the past 250 years, state constitutional drafters have refined the scope of rights and liberties protected by their constitutions’ texts. Today, all state constitutions include a search-and-seizure provision—and though only a minority follow the layout, text, and context of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most of them bear a striking resemblance to it. However, textual variations abound. Some of them may seem minor, like using the word “possessions” instead of “effects,” or mandating that warrants describe their intended targets “as nearly as may be” instead of requiring that they “particularly describ[e]” them. But others, like the addition of “electronic data and communications,” are far more significant. Yet regardless of the nature of the addition, most courts do not seem to view these linguistic changes as legally significant. While there are some exceptions, most state courts effectively gloss over the textual differences when interpreting the scope of their searchand-seizure provisions.
In this Essay, I argue that these textual differences could alter the applicability of several doctrines from federal criminal procedure jurisprudence—and that they should not be read out of state constitutions. Relying on an original database of state constitutions and proposed amendments, I chart out the textual changes to state constitutions’ search-and-seizure provisions from 1776 to present, survey case law interpreting these provisions, and conclude that while courts have largely not treated these differences as relevant, they should.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q3dycka5ce2gybcbau5gfehd/bafkreicqgcrigwgxvhobnftdhagc33znvle5a4a44brqhau7c7avrbqrum)
