Digital Commons Network^™

California’S Capital Crisis Continues: Voter-Initiated Time Limit On Capital Appellate Review Upheld Under Improper Directive Interpretation, Stephanie Nathaniel

Golden Gate University Law Review

Part I begins with an overview of the separation of powers doctrine. Part II provides an overview of Proposition 66 and the California Supreme Court case that challenged its constitutionality. This section discusses Proposition 66’s statutory objective, the petitioners’ claim of unconstitutionality, the respondents’ claim about the initiative’s purpose, and the court’s separation of powers analysis. Part III discusses the state of California’s capital crisis by (1) examining the Briggs ruling’s effect on death-row inmates; (2) providing a brief background of California’s death-penalty system; and (3) evaluating the Briggs ruling in connection with the court’s duty to provide meaningful appellate …

Gagged By Big Ag: Whistleblower Silencing Bill Threatens The Employee’S Right To Uncover Workplace Wrongdoing, Tara Cooley

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment analyzes the court’s application of the standing doctrine in PETA v. Stein to demonstrate that the dismissal of a challenge to a whistleblower silencing statute because the plaintiff lacked standing is detrimental to First Amendment rights. This Comment argues that a relaxed standing requirement must be applied to future pre-enforcement challenges of legislation that aims to silence whistleblowers, and therefore chills First Amendment rights.

Part I examines the court’s relaxed application of the standing requirement to criminal statutes that chill First Amendment rights. Part II argues for a relaxed application of the standing requirement to whistleblower silencing statutes, …

The Kavanaugh Hearings And The Search For A Just Justice, Caroline Fredrickson

Golden Gate University Law Review

The evaluation of judicial nominees.

United States V. Arpaio: The Judicial Limit On The President’S Pardon Power, Alicia Villanueva

Golden Gate University Law Review

Article II of the United States Constitution grants the President unlimited authority to pardon. Specifically, the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States (“U.S.”), except in cases of impeachment.” Once a pardon is issued, it must be accepted by the pardoned individual for the pardon to take effect. On August 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump pardoned Sheriff Arpaio of a conviction for contempt of court. The prior month, the District Court for the District of Arizona (“district court”) had convicted Sheriff Arpaio of criminal contempt of court for intentionally failing to …

Cassirer V. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation: The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act Was Unveiled But Congress Still Has Work To Do, Nicholas Joy

Golden Gate University Law Review

Section I of this Note discusses the case’s procedural history. Section II discusses the Cassirer family story and looks at the history of America’s legislative efforts aimed at impacting Holocaust-era art restitution litigation since the end of WWII. Section III discusses the Ninth Circuit’s application of HEAR and compares it to subsequent interpretations of the Act. Lastly, section IV discusses changes that Congress could make to HEAR that would help ensure that the Act has the impact that the legislature intended.

Introduction, The Hon. Michelle T. Friedland

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judges Of The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.