Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1)
- Civil liberties (1)
- Common law of war (1)
- Constitutional Rights (1)
- Constitutional remedies (1)
-
- Constitutionally necessary remedies (1)
- Crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) (1)
- Forum selection (1)
- Immigration Nationality Act (INA) (1)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (1)
- International Law (1)
- Judicial tailoring (1)
- Jurisdiction simpliciter (1)
- Limits on power (1)
- Material support of terrorist activity and groups (1)
- Military (1)
- Offences against the Law of Nations (1)
- Personal jurisdiction in enforcement proceedings (1)
- Presence and consent (1)
- Public interest balancing (1)
- RI General Laws (1)
- Real and substantial connection test (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Specific remedies (1)
- Substitutionary remedies (1)
- Terrorism (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya Monestier
Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments, Tanya Monestier
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
A Response To Steve Vladeck And Kevin Jon Heller, Peter Margulies
A Response To Steve Vladeck And Kevin Jon Heller, Peter Margulies
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Immigration Consequences To A Charge Of Simple Assault Or Battery, Deborah Gonzalez
Immigration Consequences To A Charge Of Simple Assault Or Battery, Deborah Gonzalez
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Defining, Punishing, And Membership In The Community Of Nations: Material Support And Conspiracy Charges In Military Commissions, Peter Margulies
Defining, Punishing, And Membership In The Community Of Nations: Material Support And Conspiracy Charges In Military Commissions, Peter Margulies
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Remedies & Public Interest Balancing, John M. Greabe
Constitutional Remedies & Public Interest Balancing, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
The conventional account of our remedial tradition recognizes that courts may engage in discretionary public interest balancing to withhold the specific remedies typically administered in equity. But it generally does not acknowledge that courts possess the same power with respect to the substitutionary remedies usually provided at law. The conventional account has things backwards when it comes to constitutional remedies. The modern Supreme Court frequently requires the withholding of substitutionary constitutional relief under doctrines developed to protect the perceived public interest. Yet it has treated specific relief to remedy ongoing or imminent invasions of rights as routine, at least when …