Digital Commons Network^™

Abortion And Affirmative Action: The Fragility Of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making, William E. Nelson

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

This Article shows, on the basis of new evidence, that the canonical case of Marbury v. Madison has been grossly misinterpreted and that as a result of the misinterpretation we cannot understand what is wrong with contemporary cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Article will proceed as follows. Because Marbury cannot be properly understood without understanding the eighteenth-century background against which it was decided, Part I will examine legal practices in colonial and post-Revolutionary America, focusing on cases in which judicial review emerged …

A Theory Of Federalization Doctrine, Gerald S. Dickinson

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The doctrine of federalization—the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court consulting state laws or adopting state court doctrines to guide and inform federal constitutional law—is an underappreciated field of study within American constitutional law. Compared to the vast collection of scholarly literature and judicial rulings addressing the outsized influence Supreme Court doctrine and federal constitutional law exert over state court doctrines and state legislative enactments, the opposite phenomenon of the states shaping Supreme Court doctrine and federal constitutional law has been under-addressed. This lack of attention to such a singular feature of American federalism is striking and has resulted in …

Who Will Save The Redheads? Towards An Anti-Bully Theory Of Judicial Review And Protection Of Democracy, Yaniv Roznai

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Democracy is in crisis throughout the world. And courts play a key role within this process as a main target of populist leaders and in light of their ability to hinder administrative, legal, and constitutional changes. Focusing on the ability of courts to block constitutional changes, this Article analyzes the main tensions situated at the heart of democratic erosion processes around the world: the conflict between substantive and formal notions of democracy; a conflict between believers and nonbelievers that courts can save democracy; and the tension between strategic and legal considerations courts consider when they face pressure from political branches. …

Robert Jackson's Critique Of Trump V. Hawaii, William R. Casto

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over seventy years ago, United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson accurately predicted the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. As he foresaw, the Court rubberstamped a President’s purposeful discrimination against a minority religion. This brief Essay explains Trump using Jackson’s critique of judicial review in national-security cases. The Essay also uses Trump to examine a flaw—probably structural—in the constitutional theory of process jurisprudence. The Trump case involved the Court’s construction of congressional legislation apparently limiting the President’s authority, but the present Essay does not address that aspect of the opinion.

No Amendment? No Problem: Judges, “Informal Amendment,” And The Evolution Of Constitutional Meaning In The Federal Democracies Of Australia, Canada, India, And The United States, John V. Orth, John Gava, Arvind P. Bhanu, Paul T. Babie

Pepperdine Law Review

This article considers the way in which judges play a significant role in developing the meaning of a constitution through the exercise of interpretive choices that have the effect of “informally amending” the text. We demonstrate this by examining four written federal democratic constitutions: those of the United States, the first written federal democratic constitution; India, the federal constitution of the largest democracy on earth; and the constitutions of Canada and Australia, both federal and democratic, but emerging from the English unwritten tradition. We divide our consideration of these constitutions into two ideal types, identified by Bruce Ackerman: the “revolutionary” …

Diverse Holdings And Diversified Holdings: Uncertainty In Georgia’S Procedure For Seeking Judicial Review Of Rezoning Decisions, Laura E. Nelson

Georgia Law Review

To determine the proper procedure by which landowners
may seek judicial review of adverse decisions on rezoning
applications, Georgia courts must consider the nature of
rezoning decisions. For decades, the courts have held—with
little explanation—that rezoning decisions are legislative acts
subject to de novo review. Then, in the 2017 case Diversified
Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, the Georgia Supreme
Court classified rezoning decisions as adjudicative acts that
may only be reviewed by writ of certiorari. Because the court
did not explicitly overturn the decades of precedent classifying
rezoning decisions as legislative acts, however, the nature of
rezoning decisions—and thus …

Missouri’S Path Towards “A Meaningful Opportunity For Release.” Should Remedying Unconstitutional Sentences Permit Judicial Review Of Parole Board Decisions?, Kristen S. Spina

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Conceptual Gap Between Doré And Vavilov, Mark Mancini

Dalhousie Law Journal

This paper argues that there is a fundamental conceptual gap between the cases of Doré and Vavilov. This is because both cases are motivated by different conceptions of administrative law. In Vavilov, the paper suggests that the Court melded together two theories of judicial review; a Diceyan theory based on a harmonious understanding of the principles of legislative sovereignty and the Rule of Law; and a “culture of justification” for administrative decision-makers. On the other hand, Doré is motivated by a functionalist understanding of administrative law, in which the expertise of decision- makers is emphasized. The paper explores the doctrinal …

Fire And Spotted Owls In Sierra Nevada National Forests: The Use Of Science In Management Plan Revision, Gordon Steinhoff

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang

William & Mary Law Review

Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …

A Game Theoretic Analysis Of Marbury V Madison: The Origins Of Judicial Review, Daniel R. Debutts

James Blair Historical Review

The presented research seeks to further our understanding of the Supreme Court’s formation of judicial review through an historical and game theoretic analysis. Marbury v Madison (1803) has long been hailed as a foundational case in which Chief Justice Marshall outfoxed President Jefferson in a duel of wits. Yet, despite this claim, there are surprisingly few papers that apply modern game-theory to what is widely considered a landmark—and rather iconic—supreme court case. In my paper, I review this notion and, in doing so, come to better understand inter-institutional relationships and their corresponding game theoretic strategies. More importantly, however, I suggest …

Understanding The Politics Of Resentment: Of The Principles, Institutions, Counter-Strategies, Normative Change, And The Habits Of Heart, Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

The paper asks, when is a constitutional design of any (domestic, international, supranational) polity in error? On the most general level, such a critical juncture occurs when a polity's founding document (treaty, convention, constitution) protects against dangers that no longer exist or does not protect against the dangers that were not contemplated by the founders. Constitutions not only rule but should also protect against deconstitution. When analyzed together, the cases of Hungary, Poland, South America, and more recently, the United States, suggest a worrying new pattern of the erosion of constitutional democracies. One may even speak of a recipe for …

Judicial Review And Constitutional Interpretation In Afghanistan: A Case Of Inconsistency, Shoaib Timory

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.

The …

Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.

Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …

Liberty And Separation Of Powers In Judicial Review Of Privatized Governance Regimes, Jeffrey Kleeger

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article examines the power difference between homeowner association (HOA) owners, members, and their governing boards. Administrative adjudication can remedy the imbalance to better secure member rights. What is necessary is a heightened standard of judicial review and a requirement to produce a comprehensive record for review. Boards enjoy an advantage in disputes with members—courts uphold board actions unless they are arbitrary and capricious. Boards also possess largely unrestricted state-delegated authority to make and enforce rules, as well as decide penalties for infractions. These clearly governmental functions are not restrained by the state action doctrine. Tools of administrative adjudication are …

Congressional Standing To Sue: The Role Of Courts And Congress In U.S. Constitutional Democracy, Vicki C. Jackson

Indiana Law Journal

In recent years, legislatures and their members have increasingly asserted standing to sue other branches of government, in controversies involving state legislators or legislatures as party litigants and in controversies involving members of or parts of the U.S. Congress. These cases present challenging questions for the federal Article III courts, whose jurisdiction has been interpreted to be bounded by “justiciability” doctrines, including that the party invoking federal court jurisdiction must have standing to do so. This Essay will focus on congressional standing, discussing case law involving claims by state legislatures or legislators to the extent they are relevant.1 It will …

Constitutional Preservation And The Judicial Review Of Partisan Gerrymanders, Edward B. Foley

Georgia Law Review

This Essay makes three contributions to the debate
over whether the Constitution contains a judicially
enforceable constrain on gerrymanders. First,it directly
tackles the Chief Justice'sfear of thejudiciaryappearing
partisan,observing that the same fear would exist if the
Constitution explicitly banned gerrymanders and
explaining why an implicit ban should be no less
judicially enforceable than an explicit ban under
Marbury v. Madison. Second, invoking the idea of
"institutional forbearance" in the important new book
How Democracies Die, the Essay shows how the
Elections Clause can be construed to protect
congressional districting from abuses of legislative
discretion committed by state legislatures. Together,
these …

Substitute And Complement Theories Of Judicial Review, David E. Landau

Indiana Law Journal

Constitutional theory has hypothesized two distinct and contradictory ways in which judicial review may interact with external political and social support. One line of scholarship has argued that judicial review and external support are substitutes. Thus, “political safeguard” theorists of American federalism and the separation of powers argue that these constitutional values are enforced through the political branches, making judicial review unnecessary. However, a separate line of work, mostly composed of social scientists examining rights issues, argues that the relationship between courts and outside support is complementary—judges are unlikely to succeed in their projects unless they have sufficient assistance from …

Case Note: Jacobs V Save Beeliar Wetlands (Inc), Phillip Paul

The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Judicial Review In Old Europe, Alyssa S. King

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Premodern Constitutionalism, Martin H. Redish, Matthew Heins

William & Mary Law Review

The traditional concept of American constitutionalism has long been a basic assumption not subject to tremendous examination. For generations, scholars have understood our Constitution to be the byproduct of a revolutionary war fought for representation and a foundinggeneration concernedwith preventingtyranny in any form. The traditional understandingof American constitutionalism thus consists of two elements: the underlyingprinciple of skeptical optimism, which can be found in the historical context within which the Framers gathered to draft the Constitution, and the political apparatus effectuating that idea— countermajoritarian constraint set against majoritarian power— which reveals itself through reverse engineeringfrom the structural Constitution.

Over the last …

The Principle Of Subsidiarity In Eu Judicial And Legislative Practice: Panacea Or Placebo?, Gabriél A. Moens, John Trone

Journal of Legislation

This paper considers the failure of subsidiarity as a judicial review principle and its somewhat more successful record as a legislative review principle in the European Union. Although the founding Treaties make clear that subsidiarity is a legally binding principle, the European Court of Justice has adopted an excessively deferential approach to its judicial enforcement. The Treaty provisions have been rendered essentially meaningless platitudes so far as judicial enforcement is concerned. The European Court's under-en- forcement of subsidiarity should be contrasted with the Court's history of judicial activism. While the Court has often fashioned novel legal doctrines without express support …

Democracy, Judicial Review And The Rule Of Law In The Age Of Terrorism: The Experience Of Israel - A Comparative Perspective, Ralph Ruebner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Changing Guard Of Patent Law: Chevron Deference For The Pto, Melissa F. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review

Whereas Congress has increasingly turned to administrative agencies to regulate complex technical areas, the patent system has remarkably remained an outlier. In the patent arena, the judiciary— not a federal agency—is perceived to be the most important expositor of substantive patent law standards. Yet, as the criticism toward the patent system has grown, so too have the challenges to this unusual power dynamic. The calls for institutional reform culminated in late 2011 with the enactment of the historic Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Although scholars have recognized that the AIA bestows a glut of new powers upon the United States …

A Critical Guide To Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Caleb Nelson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contractual Expansion Of Judicial Review Of Arbitration Awards In Missouri After Hall Street And Cable Connection, Benjamin A. Griffith

Saint Louis University Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Land Use By, For, And Of The People: Problems With The Application Of Initiatives And Referenda To The Zoning Process, Nicolas M. Kublicki

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Breaking The Seal On White-Collar Criminal Search Warrant Materials , David Horan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case Against Maritime Class Arbitration: A Brief Policy Argument, Landon R. Schwob

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

On April 27, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that will have far-reaching implications for virtually all sectors within the arbitration industry, including the subject of this article-maritime arbitration. The question presented in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. dealt with class arbitration and whether its imposition on parties whose arbitration clauses are silent on that issue is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). This article will primarily examine the history and viability of class arbitration-and arbitration in general-in the far more narrow context of maritime and the admiralty. Stolt-Nielsen provides an excellent backdrop against which to …