Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Public School Funding And Mccleary V. State Of Washington—A Violation Of The Separation Of Powers Doctrine Or A Legitimate Exercise Of Judicial Autonomy?, Jessica R. Burns
Public School Funding And Mccleary V. State Of Washington—A Violation Of The Separation Of Powers Doctrine Or A Legitimate Exercise Of Judicial Autonomy?, Jessica R. Burns
Seattle University Law Review
Public school funding has been contentiously litigated throughout the United States, and the Washington Supreme Court has addressed the inadequacy of public school funding in two pivotal cases: Seattle School District No. 1 v. State and McCleary v. State. In both decisions, the Washington Supreme Court held that the State failed to provide an adequate basic education for its public school students; however, in its attempt to remedy the situation, the court took drastically different approaches.
The American Dream: Daca, Dreamers, And Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Heather Fathali
The American Dream: Daca, Dreamers, And Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Heather Fathali
Seattle University Law Review
On June 15, 2012, President Obama made an announcement that changed the lives of millions. Effective immediately, the Obama administration would implement a new program—what would come to be known as Deferred Action for Child-hood Arrivals (DACA)—offering eligible undocumented young people both a two-year respite from the haunting possibility of deportation as well as the eligibility to apply for employment authorization. While millions were elated by the President’s announcement, he also faced harsh criticism. Many claimed that his action exceeded federal statutory limits, exceeded his Executive powers, and usurped congressional authority. Still others, anxious to see comprehensive immigration reform implemented, …
Asymmetric World Jurisprudence, Caprice L. Roberts
Asymmetric World Jurisprudence, Caprice L. Roberts
Seattle University Law Review
This article argues that the Supreme Court should reconsider its prudential justiciability doctrines and their underlying assumptions. As a global theory, this Article offers a judicial dynamism model. It then articulates the relevance of the political question doctrine and the need to view the doctrine as prudential rather than constitutional. First, I discuss the Supreme Court's increased use of judicial minimalism and the political question doctrine to avoid important cases and reduce its docket. Second, I describe my model, in which the court takes a dynamic approach to such issues, dependent upon the political climate, to maintain its appropriate stature …
A Limited Defense Of (At Least Some Of) The Umpire Analogy, Michael P. Allen
A Limited Defense Of (At Least Some Of) The Umpire Analogy, Michael P. Allen
Seattle University Law Review
This Essay provides at least a limited defense of some parts of the umpire analogy and ultimately suggests that this analogy may tell us something important about the more general role of courts in the United States. This Essay proceeds in four parts. Part II explores in more depth what those making the umpire analogy appear to mean. At its heart, the analogy principally has been used to address the substantive decision making of judges. This Part will explain that there is more to the analogy than such a narrow decisional focus suggests. Part III builds on Part II. It …