Digital Commons Network^™

Judicial Review In Public And Private Governance, Tomer S. Stein

Scholarly Works

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court limited judicial deference to universities. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court reduced deference to administrative agencies. In Coster v. UIP Cos., Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court narrowed deference to boards of directors, proclaimed a new standard of judicial review, and then seemingly retracted it. Common to these constitutional, administrative, and corporate law cases is unpredictability, uncertainty, and incoherence in the use and application of substantive standards of review. The resulting disarray is explicitly acknowledged by the very judges that formulate these standards of …

The Evolving Apa And The Originalist Challenge, Ronald M. Levin

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article, written for a symposium marking the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), discusses the manifold ways in which courts have creatively interpreted the APA’s provisions on rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review. Many of these interpretations seem to be barely, if at all, consistent with the intentions of the Act’s drafters and with standard principles of statutory construction. They can, however, be defended as pragmatic judicial efforts to keep up with the evolving needs of the regulatory state, especially in light of Congress’s persistent failure to take charge of updating the Act on its own. At this …

Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, And Judicial Review: Comparing And Assessing Michael Perry's Early And Contemporary Arguments, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In this Essay, I explore, compare, and evaluate two theoretical models of judicial review in individual rights cases, each proposed by Professor Michael J. Perry, albeit in books separated by three and a half decades. In his 1982 book, The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policymaking by the Judiciary, Early Perry embraced an aggressive form of judicial activism, urging the Supreme Court to test political judgments through an open-ended search for political-moral truth. Contemporary Perry, by contrast, takes a very different approach. In his 2017 book, A Global Political Morality: Human Rights, …

Enforcement Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article systematically analyzes the delicate balance of congressional and judicial authority granted by the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments vest Congress with powers to enforce civil rights, equal treatment, and civic participation. Their reach extends significantly beyond the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts’ narrow construction of congressional authority. In recent years, the Court has struck down laws that helped secure voter rights, protect religious liberties, and punish age or disability discrimination. Those holdings encroach on the amendments’ allocated powers of enforcement.

Textual, structural, historical, and normative analyses provide profound insights into the appropriate roles of the Supreme …

Enforcement Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article systematically analyzes the delicate balance of congressional and judicial authority granted by the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments vest Congress with powers to enforce civil rights, equal treatment, and civic participation. Their reach extends significantly beyond the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts’ narrow construction of congressional authority. In recent years, the Court has struck down laws that helped secure voter rights, protect religious liberties, and punish age or disability discrimination. Those holdings encroach on the amendments’ allocated powers of enforcement.

Textual, structural, historical, and normative analyses provide profound insights into the appropriate roles of the Supreme …

Precedent, Non-Universal Injunctions, And Judicial Departmentalism: A Model Of Constitutional Adjudication, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This Article proposes a model of constitutional adjudication that offers a deeper, richer, and more accurate vision than the simple “courts strike down unconstitutional laws” narrative that pervades legal, popular, and political discourse around constitutional litigation. The model rests on five principles:

1) an actionable constitutional violation arises from the actual or threatened enforcement of an invalid law, not the existence of the law itself;

2) the remedy when a law is constitutionally invalid is for the court to halt enforcement;

3) remedies must be particularized to the parties to a case and courts should not issue “universal” or “nationwide” …

The Genius Of Hamilton And The Birth Of The Modern Theory Of The Judiciary, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In late May 1788, with the essays of the Federalist on the Congress (Article I) and the Executive (Article II) completed, Alexander Hamilton turned, finally, to Article III and the judiciary. The Federalist’s essays 78 to 83 – the essays on the judiciary - had limited effect on ratification. No newspaper outside New York reprinted them, and they appeared very late in the ratification process – after eight states had ratified. But, if these essays had little immediate impact – essentially limited to the ratification debates in New York and, perhaps, Virginia – they were a stunning intellectual achievement. Modern …

Curbing Remedies For Official Wrongs: The Need For Bivens Suits In National Security Cases, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Economic Justice: Structural Power For "We The People", Martha T. Mccluskey

Journal Articles

Toward that goal, this essay proposes a structural principle of collective economic power for “we the people.” This principle is both consistent with longstanding Constitutional ideals and tailored to the current challenges of neoliberal ideology and policy. It develops two premises: first, it rejects the neoliberal economic ideology that defines legitimate power and freedom as individualized “choice” constrained by an existing political economy. Instead, this proposed principle recognizes that meaningful political economic freedom and power fundamentally consist of access to collective organizations with potential to create a “more perfect union” with better and less constrained options. Second, the post-Lochner principle …

Tiers Of Scrutiny In A Hierarchical Judiciary, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Dynamic Incorporation Of Federal Law, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article provides a comprehensive analysis of state constitutional limits on legislative incorporation of dynamic federal law, as occurs when a state legislature incorporates future federal tax, environmental or health laws. Many state judicial decisions draw on the nondelegation doctrine to endorse an ex ante prohibition on state legislative incorporation of dynamic federal law. However, the analysis in this Article shows how bedrock principles related to separation of powers under state constitutions, such as protecting transparency, reinforcing accountability, and protecting against arbitrariness in lawmaking, are not consistent with this approach. Instead, this Article highlights two practices that can make dynamic …

The Early Years Of First Amendment Lochnerism, Jeremy K. Kessler

Faculty Scholarship

From Citizens United to Hobby Lobby, civil libertarian challenges to the regulation of economic activity are increasingly prevalent. Critics of this trend invoke the specter of Lochner v. New York. They suggest that the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and other legislative "conscience clauses" are being used to resurrect the economically libertarian substantive due process jurisprudence of the early twentieth century. Yet the worry that aggressive judicial enforcement of the First Amendment might erode democratic regulation of the economy and enhance the economic power of private actors has a long history. As this Article demonstrates, anxieties …

Eureka Cnty. V. Off. Of State Engr. Of State Of Nev., Div. Of Water Resources, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 84 (Oct. 29, 2015), Chelsea Finnegan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

For the State Engineer to grant water rights applications, there must be evidence to support the decision and the new rights must not substantially conflict with existing rights. On appeal from the District Court, the Court found no evidence to support the granted application, and held the use of Respondent’s rights would severely impact the water table. The Court reversed and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Eaja Fees For Reasons-And-Bases Remands: The Perspective Of A Veterans' Lawyer, David E. Boelzner

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Up In The Air: Department Of Homeland Security V. Maclean And The Whistleblower Protection Act, Mike Brett

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean deciding whether an employee of the Department of Homeland Security comes under the protection of the Whistleblower Protection Act when they release potentially sensitive information to the media. Generally, the Act protects whistleblowers unless the information they release is not allowed "as specified by law." The particular statutory question in this case is whether the "law" prohibiting release must be contained in a statute, or can include the Department of Homeland Security's own promulgated regulation. The Author profiles the background of the case, applicable legal precedent, and …

Zivotofsky V. Kerry: Of Passports, Politics, And Foreign Policy Powers, Cara J. Grand

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary profiles the upcoming Supreme Court decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which will decide, for the first time in United States history, the dividing line between legislative and executive authority to recognize foreign nations. Though it emanates from a seemingly-benign passport disagreement about a place-of-birth designation, this case will address an unprecedented and extremely controversial issue about separation of powers that has somehow evaded a Supreme Court decision. The Author profiles the case history and applicable legal precedent and analyzes the arguments for both sides before recommending that the Court should not find the President's power in this …

Kaley V. United States: The Right To Counsel Of Choice Caught In The Wide Net Of Asset Forfeiture, Adam J. Fine

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Kaley v. United States, in which the Court may decide whether a defendant who needs potentially forfeitable assets to retain counsel of choice is entitled, under the Due Process Clause, to a hearing to challenge the grand jury's finding of probable cause.

The Child Independence Is Born: James Otis And Writs Of Assistance, James M. Farrell

Communication

This chapter is a reexamination of the Writs of Assistance speech by James Otis. In particular, it is a reconsideration of the evidence upon which rests the historical reputation of Otis’s address. Are the claims by historians who credit Otis with sparking the Revolutionary movement in colonial America warranted or not? That reassessment begins with a detailed review of the nature and function of writs of assistance within the political, legal, and economic environment of colonial Massachusetts. It then turns to an analysis of the legal dispute over writs of assistance in the 1761 trial. From there we will reconstruct …

The Voting Rights Act's Fight To Stay Rational: Shelby County V. Holder, Sudeep Paul

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court may decide whether Congress's 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was constitutional.

In All Fairness: Us Airways V. Mccutchen And The Use Of Equitable Defenses In Erisa Reimbursement Claims, Ravi Patel

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, US Airways v. McCutchen, in which the Court will decide whether courts are permitted to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language for benefit plans under ERISA. In so doing, the Court must decide whether to give effect to the Third Circuit's holding, that ERISA does permit this use of equitable principles, which runs contrary to the majority of circuits.

The Prying Nose: Florida V. Jardines And Warrantless Dog-Sniff Tests On Private Property, Ali Mirsaidi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Florida v. Jardines, in which the Court will decide whether a dog-sniff test at the front door of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The case asks the Court to resolve its prior decisions holding that dog-sniff tests are minimally intrusive when conducted in public with its decisions affording higher protections for searches of private residences.

Clapper V. Amnesty International: Who Has Standing To Challenge Government Surveillance?, Elisa Sielski

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, in which the Court will examine whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge possible government surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In so doing, the Court will have to revisit the standards for standing in surveillance cases in light of Laird v. Tatum and a circuit split stemming from that case.

Evans V. Michigan: The Impact Of Judicial Error On Double Jeopardy Protection, Zi-Xiang Shen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Evans v. Michigan, in which the Court has an opportunity to clarify the bounds of the prohibition on double jeopardy. More specifically, the Court will determine what, if any, impact judicial error has on double jeopardy protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Take The Money And Run: Detainment Incident To A Search Warrant In Bailey V. United States, Alexander Hall

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Bailey v. United States, in which the Court will examine the scope of permissible non-arrest seizures in the context of a detainment incident to a search warrant. The case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify its holding in Michigan v. Summers--that occupants of premises being searched pursuant to a valid warrant may be detained during the search--by determining whether such a detainment is permissible when the occupants have left the premises.

Between Seminole Rock And A Hard Place: A New Approach To Agency Deference, Kevin O. Leske

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"The Essence Of A Free Society": The Executive Powers Legacy Of Justice Stevens And The Future Of Foreign Affairs Deference, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

After 9/11, Justice John Paul Stevens insisted the United States maintain its foundational commitment to the rule of law—the very “essence of a free society.” Justice Stevens led the Court’s scrutiny and rejection of early Bush Administration policies regarding the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Since it lost Justice Stevens’s passionate and principled voice in 2008, the Court has not addressed the scope of the President’s military detention authority. This Article considers Justice Stevens’s role in the Court’s altered stance, and also a complementary explanation: the Obama Administration’s improved interpretation and exercise of executive authority. Informed and inspired by …

The Subjects Of The Constitution, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Two centuries after Marbury v. Madison, there remains a deep confusion about quite what a court is reviewing when it engages in judicial review. Conventional wisdom has it that judicial review is the review of certain legal objects: statutes, regulations. But strictly speaking, this is not quite right. The Constitution prohibits not objects but actions. Judicial review is the review of such actions. And actions require actors: verbs require subjects. So before judicial review focuses on verbs, let alone objects, it should begin at the beginning, with subjects. Every constitutional inquiry should begin with a basic question that has been …

Judicial Elections As Popular Constitutionalism, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most important recent developments in American legal theory is the burgeoning interest in "popular constitutionalism." One of the most important features of the American legal system is the selection of state judges – judges who resolve thousands of state and federal constitutional questions each year – by popular election. Although a large literature addresses each of these subjects, scholarship has rarely bridged the two. Hardly anyone has evaluated judicial elections in light of popular constitutionalism, or vice versa.

This Article undertakes that thought experiment. Conceptualizing judicial elections as instruments of popular constitutionalism, the Article aims to show, …

Abdul-Kabir V. Quarterman/Brewer V. Quarterman: A Court Divided Over What Constitutes “Clearly Established Federal Law”, Jarod R. Stewart

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Pacific Bell V. Linkline: Price Squeezing And The Limits Of Judicial Administrability, Sandeep Vaheesan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.