This Article examines a generally underappreciated 1943 Supreme Court case, Schneiderman v. United States. Schneiderman raises a variety of issues related to disparate subjects, such as the role of courts during wartime, the place of the Constitution in the American "civil religion," constitutional limitations on immigration regulation, and so on. Because this case discusses all of these issues (and had a major impact on the evolution of some of these issues), it is a case of substantial importance and interest that has belonged in the constitutional canon for some time. However, this Article argues that, because of the new issues posed by September 11th, Schneiderman belongs in the constitutional canon now more than ever. This Article examines what makes this case a good candidate for the constitutional canon, and in doing so attempts to suggest some modifications of the current framework used for discussing what makes a case a good candidate for the constitutional canon.
David Fontana, A Case for the Twenty-First Century Constitutional Canon: Schneiderman v. United States, 35 Conn. L. Rev. 35 (2002).