Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young
United States V. Klein, Then And Now, Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
United States v. Klein, decided during Reconstruction, was the first Supreme Court case to invalidate a statutory restriction on federal courts’ jurisdiction. It is the only one to do so by finding a violation of Article III of the Constitution. Klein has been cited in thirty-three United States Supreme Court opinions, and roughly five hundred times each by lower federal courts and law journal articles. Recent commentators have read Klein both too broadly and narrowly. Its central holding is that Congress may not grant federal courts jurisdiction to decide a set of cases on the merits while depriving them …
Judicial Review Of Informal Agency Action On The Fiftieth Anniversary Of The Apa: The Alleged Demise And Actual Status Of Overton Park's Requirement Of Judicial Review "On The Record", Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
No abstract provided.
Congressional Regulation Of Federal Courts' Jurisdiction And Processes: United States V. Klein Revisited, Gordon G. Young
Congressional Regulation Of Federal Courts' Jurisdiction And Processes: United States V. Klein Revisited, Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
No abstract provided.
The Significance Of Border Crossings: Lopez, Morrison And The Fate Of Congressional Power To Regulate Goods, And Transactions Connected With Them, Based On Prior Passage Through Interstate Commerce, Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
No abstract provided.
Some Reflections On Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Gordon G. Young
Some Reflections On Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
No abstract provided.
Justifying Motive Analysis In Judicial Review, Gordon G. Young
Justifying Motive Analysis In Judicial Review, Gordon G. Young
Gordon G. Young
Motives concern us in ordinary life and in the law of torts and crimes, and that concern is justified by consequentialist ethics. Despite occasional judicial protestations, motive analysis pervades large parts of constitutional law. Illegitimate motives aimed at suspect classes, or "designed to strike" at any number of rights identified as fundamental, presumptively invalidate the official actions that they animate. The consequentialist arguments for the use of motive review in this class of cases are relatively simple. Such illegitimate official motives tend to cause bad distributions of tangible benefits and burdens, or cause direct cognitive or emotional harm to the …