Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

PDF

Pepperdine Law Review

Federalism

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick Mar 2021

Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick

Pepperdine Law Review

Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …


Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone May 2018

Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone

Pepperdine Law Review

The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …


Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall May 2018

Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …


Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar Oct 2012

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Supreme Court's Most Extraordinary Term - Introduction, Douglas W. Kmiec Oct 2012

The Supreme Court's Most Extraordinary Term - Introduction, Douglas W. Kmiec

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet Jul 2012

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Intermittent State Constitutionalism, Justin Long Mar 2012

Intermittent State Constitutionalism, Justin Long

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb Mar 2012

What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and prohibits the national government, the states or both from doing some things. The Court has inferred principles of federalism from those provisions. The political science community has treated the advantages of federalism as contingent on whether federalism deepens or diffuses conflict or opens competition for power. The United States Supreme Court's approach does neither; it has been trying to clarify and police a very different boundary. Even on its own terms, however, the Court's justifications do not work - a problem made …