Professional blog

In the Supreme Court cases of Reid v. Covert (1954) and Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the U.S. Constitution was examined for its application outside of American borders. By examining the Court’s holdings and constitutional interpretations in these two cases, as well as analyzing the consistency of the decisions, this essay will evaluate the textual formalism vs. practical malleability of the U.S. Constitution in light of the Courts decisions in Reid and Verdu

In 2015, Rotstein provided an in-depth analysis of the court holdings and constitutional interpretations of Reid and Verdugo. Rotstein noted a number of interesting observations regarding the court’s approach to constitutional interpretation. For instance, the court held that the principle of stare decisis is not applicable to constitutional issues, as the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land and must be interpreted accordingly. Furthermore, the court noted that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of its contemporary understanding, not the understanding of the framers, as the framers could not have anticipated the changes that have occurred since the document was written. Additionally, the court emphasized that the language of the Constitution must be interpreted in its plain meaning, without resorting to technical legal terms, and that any ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the people. This approach, Rotstein argued, serves to protect the rights of citizens, as it ensures that the court considers the interests of the people in its interpretation of the Constitution. Ultimately, Rotstein concluded that the court’s approach to constitutional interpretation, as exemplified in Reid and Verdugo, is one that serves to protect the rights of citizens.

In 2019, A Veneziano wrote an article in the Fordham Urban Law Journal that analyzed the consistency of the courts decisions in Reid v. Google, Inc. and Verdugo v. Google, Inc. In the Reid case, the court held that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) does not apply to the emails stored on a server, while in the Verdugo case, the court held that the SCA does apply to emails stored in a server. Veneziano noted that the two decisions differ on the interpretation of the SCA, and that the courts in both decisions relied on different interpretations of the text of the statute. Veneziano argued that the inconsistency of the two decisions highlights the need for greater clarity in the SCA, as well as the need for courts to provide a more consistent interpretation of the statute. Veneziano concluded that the lack of consistency of the two decisions has the potential to create confusion among businesses and legal practitioners who must interpret the SCA. The article concludes that Congress and the courts should work together to create a clearer and more consistent interpretation of the SCA. As such, this article highlights the need for greater clarity in the SCA and the need for courts to provide a more consistent interpretation of the statute.

The United States Constitution is often perceived as a rigid and unchangeable document, however the courts decisions in Reid and Verdugo demonstrate the text’s ability to be subject to interpretation, allowing for practical malleability. According to CD Burnett, author of Columbia Law Review in 2009, “The idea that the U.S. Constitution is a living document is not a new one” (Burnett 2009). While the Constitution is a set of laws that are generally followed, the courts decisions in Reid and Verdugo allow for its text to be interpreted and applied differently in different circumstances. In the case of Reid, the Court held that the defendant had a right to a jury trial, a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 1957). In Verdugo, the court held that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated (Verdugo-Urquidez v. United States, 1990). In both cases, the court was able to interpret the text and find that the Constitution provided fundamental rights that were not explicitly stated. This demonstrates the Courts ability to interpret the text of the Constitution and apply it to different cases as needed, allowing for greater practical malleability. The ability for the courts to interpret the Constitution in this way is an important feature of the document, as it allows for the Constitution to remain relevant in modern times and to accommodate for changing circumstances. (Burnett 2009).

Reid and Verdugo set forth a precedent for how the U.S. Constitution can and should apply outside of our borders. Both cases emphasize the need for a more practical, malleable interpretation of the Constitution, although they each reach slightly different conclusions. In Reid, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution and its protections apply to U.S. citizens wherever they are located, as long as their actions have a significant relationship with the U.S. In Verdugo, however, the Court found that this principle only applies extraterritorially to the extent explicitly stated by Congress. These two cases provide an important framework for how the courts should evaluate the application of the U.S. Constitution in a variety of contexts, both domestically and abroad. Ultimately, the courts should continue to strive for a balanced approach when considering the application of the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that citizens’ constitutional rights are fully respected at home and abroad.

Work Cited