There are many causes of this, but one is our general misplaced obsession with "The Feds," and as I've complained about a lot #onhere, every single law school is culpable in this.
"Con Law" classes are just FED con law, and "state and local govt" is a CLASS, not like ... embedded everywhere.
The current cowardly establishment take is that the nyc trial of Trump was unserious and the only legitimate things to try Trump for just happen to involve getting past the veto of federalist society stooges who would support a violent overthrow of the government if it meant putting Trump in power.
It serves to make federal law look like the "important" law, and the state and local stuff as ... lesser.
Similarly, FEDERAL clerkships are the prestigious ones, even though I'd have definitely learned a LOT more that is relevant to ... most things ... had I clerked more locally.
But we've created a culture where "local" means "lame" and "federal" means "important."
There are times when we SHOULD look to the Feds: Reconstruction, 1960s civil rights, etc. In those rare moments the Feds find a spine, they can fix local breakdowns in democracy.
But it's NOT a universal trait.
another thing going on is that Those Who Decided to Opine lacked basic knowledge of the law of federal courts. There were prominent pieces saying that the SDNY would enjoin the state criminal prosecution which just...no, that is not a thing that happens...ever.
I had a friend that got a clerkship in a state court, but it wasn't her state (she had to move to it) and it turned into a nightmare. It wasn't about jurisprudence; the legal community was a clique, she wasn't a member, and no one cared to make her a member.
She fled back home after a month or two.
I STRONGLY disagree with this, as to constitutional law specifically
The federal constitution is a completely different Species Of Thing from the state constitutions, and understanding it is a completely different process
Now, federal constitutional law classes should absolutely cover how state constitutions fit in to the structure of the federal union
But that's different from studying their, like, content
I didn’t say they were the same. I just said our 1L con law classes should not just be abt the Feds. And the states shouldn’t come up just as “how do they fit in,” but on their own substantive merits.
If anything, your point makes mine STRONGER. If they’re different, they need to be taught.
If state and Fed constitutions were similar, then we could (but shouldn’t) teach the Feds and add “you can extrapolate for the states.”
But if we can’t extrapolate, then teaching 1Ls just the Feds DOUBLY misleads them—they both undervalue AND can’t understand state constitutions.
Ah, but that hits another meta-point of mine, which is that we shouldn't carve out "local" classes. If anything, under your approach, we should have "con law" (just states) and "federal con law" (the feds).
I'm tired of the Feds getting this position of privilege they don't entirely deserve.
Oh I agree they should be taught, they're fascinating and important and massively, catastrophically weird haha
I just don't think they can be made to fall into the same intellectual domain as the federal Constitution
