Constitutional law experts explain why GOP lawsuits could encourage private land ownership

Three Constitutional law experts are expressing concern about the flurry of Republican-proposed laws that would grant private citizens the right to sue other citizens as they believe it could send the wrong message and result in chaos.

A new Business Insider report highlights the opinions of a number of legal experts who believe such laws are unconstitutional and potentially dangerous. Speaking to Insider, Doron Kalir, a professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, discussed Texas' controversial abortion law as he explained why such laws are constitutionally problematic.

"It's clear not only that this is unconstitutional, but that it was designed specifically to override the general framework of challenging unconstitutional law," Kalir said.

Pointing to the abortion controversy in Texas, The Insider notes that legal experts "said the abortion ban was indisputably unconstitutional under the precedent set by Roe v. Wade, which is the reason Texas came up with the unprecedented enforcement mechanism: to evade the Constitution."

He went on to explain the law enforcement "gimmick" that comes with these types of laws. "This is a question about the future of the nature of the legal system in this country and the supremacy of the US Constitution, if it is indeed the supreme law of the land, as it declares itself to be," he said.

Jon D. Michaels, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, weighed in to discuss the long-term impact these laws could have. According to Michaels, the laws are "creating this world in which people are surveying one another" and "trying to play gotcha with one another."

He added, "It's one thing for the state to tell you to behave, it's another for your neighbor to tell you."

Despite the concerns, David B. Cruz, the Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Southern California, hopes that the Supreme Court could combat this issue but the problem lies within the "very conservative-dominated" judicial dynamic.

"Our norm and our aspiration is that the judges will enforce the law, including the law of the Constitution, even-handedly," he said. "But the willingness of this current, very conservative-dominated court to let states flout clear precedence about what protections the Constitution extends isn't encouraging."