Recently, in my Constitutional Law class, many of the topics we’ve discussed carry real weight for modern society and for the struggles so many Americans are facing today. Rather than feeling abstract or historical, these doctrines feel deeply relevant. They’ve pushed me to ask difficult questions about the scope of constitutional power: Who gets to decide what, and when? When is it essential for states and local governments to retain control, and at what point does that authority cross a constitutional line?
These questions feel especially pressing when considering the system of checks and balances built into our government and the Supreme Court’s role in determining what is or is not proper and constitutional. In theory, these checks exist to prevent abuses of power and to protect individual rights. In practice, however, the limitations of those checks can feel stark.
One case that was especially upsetting for me was City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983). After being subjected to a police chokehold during a routine traffic stop related to a broken headlight, Adolph Lyons sought justice. He was a 24-year-old black man who offered no resistance as four police officers violently restrained him. Lyons sought not only damages, but an injunction to prevent the City of Los Angeles from continuing to authorize the use of chokeholds. The Supreme Court denied that request, holding that Lyons lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he could not demonstrate a “real and immediate” threat that he would be subjected to the same harm again. Past injury or the reasonable chance of future injury due to the statute was somehow not enough.
Justice Marshall’s dissent, however, exposes the unsettling consequence of that logic. He expresses his fear that entire categories of constitutional violations may be barred from judicial oversight so long as no individual can prove with certainty that they will be harmed again in the future. Policies that repeatedly infringe on constitutional rights can persist, not because they are lawful, but because they are procedurally difficult to challenge.
Cases like Lyons leave me wondering whether our system sometimes prioritizes formal boundaries over substantive justice. Perhaps if the checks within our constitutional structure were more responsive, more willing to confront systemic harm rather than isolated incidents, our nation would be better equipped to address the very real injustices that continue to surface today.
These concepts feel weighty in our current climate, but I feel it is important understand the failings of our justice system to better learn how to change them. Maybe then, more innocent Americans can be protected by our Constitution rather than dismissed.