Digital Commons Network^™

Barring Judicial Review, Laura E. Dolbow -- Sharswood Fellow

Vanderbilt Law Review

Whether judicial review is available is one of the most hotly contested issues in administrative law. Recently, laws that prohibit judicial review have sparked debate in the Medicare, immigration, and patent contexts. These debates are continuing in challenges to the recently created Medicare price negotiation program. Yet despite debates about the removal of judicial review, little is known about how often, and in what contexts, Congress has expressly precluded review. This Article provides new insights about express preclusion by conducting an empirical study of the U.S. Code. It creates an original dataset of laws that expressly preclude judicial review of …

Beyond Samuel Moyn's Countermajoritarian Difficulty As A Model Of Global Judicial Review, James T. Gathii

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article responds to Samuel Moyn's critique of judicial review and his endorsement of judicial modesty as an alternative. By invoking the countermajoritarian difficulty, Moyn argues that judicial overreach has become an unwelcome global phenomenon that should be reexamined and curbed. I reject Moyn's claim that this kind of judicial modesty should define the role of courts for all time. By applying the countermajoritarian difficulty beyond its United States origins, Moyn assumes it is an unproblematic baseline against which to measure the role of courts globally. Moyn's vision says nothing about when it would be appropriate for courts to rule …

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Tentative Interpretations: The Abracadabra Of Administrative Rulemaking And The End Of 'Alaska Hunters', Matthew P. Downer

Vanderbilt Law Review

Agency flexibility is a battlefield. When circumstances change or a new regime takes power, federal agencies often adjust their settled regulations to reflect new realities. There is a persistent struggle, however, between preserving this flexibility and protecting those who relied upon the previous regulations.' When an agency changes course, regulated entities must comply, often with little warning and at great expense. In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") to balance these interests by restricting when and how agencies can promulgate and change regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the APA did not achieve a lasting d6tente. Instead, it merely created new fronts …

Multiple-Agency Delegations & One-Agency Chevron, William Weaver

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress frequently delegates to agencies, and a host of Supreme Court decisions have articulated tests for determining what level of deference courts should give to agency interpretations of their statutory directives. Courts have historically undertaken these analyses in the context of a single agency. Congressional authorization of joint rulemaking authority is more complicated, however, and the traditional frameworks for review are inadequate.

When Congress delegates authority to multiple agencies, courts should review the agencies' rules with heightened deference. The traditional framework for judicial review of agency rules is ill equipped when rules are promulgated by multiple coordinated agencies. The prevalence …

Judicial Review For Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn In "Ex Parte Quirin", The Nazi Saboteur Case, Andrew Kent

Vanderbilt Law Review

The last decade has seen intense disputes about whether alleged terrorists captured during the nontraditional post- 9/11 conflict with al Qaeda and affiliated groups may use habeas corpus to challenge their military detention or military trials. It is time to take a step back from 9/11 and begin to evaluate the enemy combatant legal regime on a broader, more systemic basis, and to understand its application to future conflicts. A leading precedent ripe for reconsideration is Ex parte Quirin, a World War II-era case in which the Supreme Court held that saboteurs admittedly employed by an enemy nation's military had …

Judicial Review Under A British War Powers Act, David Jenkins

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article considers how U.K courts might exercise review under a hypothetical British "war powers act," in the event that the current Labour Government or an incoming Tory one responds to calls to reform the Royal War Prerogative and Parliament passes such a statute. The Article undertakes a comparative study, analyzing how U.S. courts apply the political question doctrine in war powers cases. It suggests that they apply the doctrine in a way that assesses the justiciability of the particular subject matter of a case, thereby supporting deference to the political branches in most war powers cases without foreclosing review …

The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack

Vanderbilt Law Review

From the Supreme Court's earliest days, it has reviewed some, but not all, challenges to the President's claims that a statute authorized his action. Not surprisingly, the Court's decisions granting review of the President's assertions of statutory powers have garnered more attention than its denials of review. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison1 and Little v. Barreme,2 gaining momentum in the twentieth century with the extensive discussion of statutory authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer3 and Dames & Moore v. Regan,4 and accelerating in recent years with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,5 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,6 and Medellin v. Texas,7 the …

There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, William R. Casto

Vanderbilt Law Review

John Marshall is the Agamemnon of Supreme Court history. He is universally considered the Court's greatest Justice, and rightly so. But there were great Justices before Marshall. One of those great Justices was James Iredell. No Justice in the Court's history has provided a more detailed or sophisticated explanation and justification of the doctrine of judicial review. Iredell needs a bard, and this Essay is my ode to his memory.

The Court, The Constitution, And The History Of Ideas, Scott D. Gerber

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several of the nation's most influential constitutional law scholars have been arguing for the better part of a decade that judicial review should be sharply limited, or eliminated altogether. The list includes such prominent thinkers as Professor Mark V. Tushnet of Harvard Law School, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, and Dean Larry D. Kramer of Stanford Law School. In place of the doctrine made famous by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, these leading voices of the legal academy call for "popular constitutionalism": a constitutional law that is defined outside of the …

How "Mead" Has Muddled Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Lisa S. Bressman

Vanderbilt Law Review

When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Mead Corp. four years ago, Justice Scalia predicted that judicial review of agency action would devolve into chaos. This Article puts that prediction to the test by examining the court of appeals decisions applying the decision. Justice Scalia actually understated the effect of Mead. This Article suggests a remedy for the mess.

In Mead, the Court held that an agency is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC only if Congress has delegated to that agency the authority to issue interpretations that carry the force of law, and the agency …

The Problem With Arbitration Agreements, Stephen J. Choi

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Arbitration procedures today have become highly standardized. Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the American Arbitration Association Center for International Dispute Resolution (AAA) each have detailed provisions for administering arbitration proceedings (often involving parties of different nationalities). Parties entering into arbitration can expect to have limited discovery, a hearing, and the ability to bring attorneys to the proceedings. While typically providing less process than formal court proceedings, the standardized nature of arbitration can lead parties to view arbitration much like court proceedings--a fixed, pre-determined process to settle disputes. Thomas …

From Unwritten To Written: Transformation In The British Common-Law Constitution, David Jenkins

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article posits that the British Constitution is changing by incorporating written principles that restrain Parliament through judicial review. The Author asserts that this constitutional model has basis in the common law and the orthodox theories of Blackstone and Dicey. In addition, the "ultra vires" doctrine supports the model and provides a basis for judicial review of Parliament. As constitutions may accommodate written and unwritten elements of law, as well as various means of enforcement and change, the Author posits that constitutions are defined by how strongly they reflect underlying legal norms. With a shift in the rule of recognition …

There's No Place Like Home: The Availability Of Judicial Review Over Certification Decisions Invoking Federal Jurisdiction Under The Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act, Robert B. Mahini

Vanderbilt Law Review

During the latter half of the twentieth century, society's perception of juvenile delinquents changed dramatically.' Once fairly characterized as "immature kids who might get arrested for truancy, shoplifting or joy riding," juvenile offenders have recently earned reputations as vicious criminals regularly committing such serious offenses as robbery, rape, and murder.' This apparent trend toward increased violence has resulted in a "get tough" approach to federal juvenile justice policies.' Accordingly, Congress has expanded the federal government's ability to prosecute certain juvenile offenders by broadening the scope of federal jurisdiction.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, for example, authorizes federal prosecution …

Naked Land Transfers And American Constitutional Development, Mark A. Graber

Vanderbilt Law Review

The constitutional prohibition on naked land transfers, laws granting to B property that belonged to A, played a far greater role in American constitutional development than is generally realized. The Marshall and Taney Courts heard numerous cases in which government officials were accused of expropriating private property, typically by legislative oversight rather than by deliberate intent. When resolving these cases, antebellum justices relied heavily on "certain great principles of justice" rather than on specific constitutional provisions. Supreme Court majorities on several occasions probably exercised the judicial power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. More frequently, Marshall and Taney Court decisions in …

Contracting For An Expanded Scope Of Judicial Review In Arbitration Agreements, Tom Cullinan

Vanderbilt Law Review

Arbitration is generally defined as a process in which parties voluntarily agree to submit a dispute to an impartial third person called an arbitrator,' who is often selected by the parties and is empowered to make a decision based on the evidence and the parties' arguments. Because of its contractual nature, arbitration claims a central role in settling today's commercial disputes. By structuring the agreement to fit their needs, parties can tailor the arbitration agreement to provide significant advantages over other forms of dispute resolution. For example, arbitration is generally faster, cheaper, and more private than litigation. The parties can …

Judicial Review Of Defensive Tactics In Proxy Contests: When Is Using A Rights Plan Right?, Randall S. Thomas

Vanderbilt Law Review

Proxy contests have reemerged recently as an important part of the market for corporate control. After years of indifference to corporate elections, dissident shareholders have turned once again to the ballot box as a means of removing unwanted management. In a surprisingly large number of these battles, the challengers have succeeded in getting all or much of what they wanted."

The resurgence of proxy contests has sparked renewed interest by incumbent managements in developing powerful new defensive tactics in corporate elections. Incumbents' time-honored campaign strategies, such as switching the annual shareholders' meeting date, or restricting the potential candidates who can …

Quasi-Constitutional Law: Clear Statement Rules As Constitu, William N. Eskridge, Jr., Philip P. Frickey

Vanderbilt Law Review

In one of the most celebrated law review articles of all time, Karl Llewellyn argued that the traditional canons of statutory construction are not reliable guides to predicting judicial interpretations, because for every canon supporting one interpretation there is a counter-canon cutting against that interpretation. He accomplished his tour de force in large part by focusing upon the "referential" canons-rules referring the Court to an outside or preexisting source to determine statutory meaning'-and upon the "linguistic" canons-general conventions of language, grammar, and syntax. Llewellyn did not explore in any detail the "substantive" canons, the clear statement rules or presumptions of …

The Presumption Of Reviewability: A Study In Canonical Construction And Its Consequences, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Vanderbilt Law Review

The much-maligned canons of statutory construction stubbornly have survived, largely on the strength of the assertion that whatever the aim of the statute's interpretation, an interpretive canon will improve the chances that the statute's aim will be realized. Canonical construction serves two different functions. Some of the canons ostensibly are designed as short-cuts to the discovery of the legislature's "true" intent. Professor Geoffrey Miller has explained how the canons may reflect the judicial articulations of conversational conventions that help courts understand otherwise vexing statutory language.' Canons may also serve as surrogates for other, better evidence of legislators' intent. In this …

The Northern Ireland Broadcasting Ban: Some Reflections On Judicial Review, Russell L. Weaver, Geoffrey Bennett

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Essay initially examines the British government's ban on its broadcasting networks that restricts coverage of Northern Ireland organizations, and concludes by making some reflections on the system of judicial review in the United States. Professors Weaver and Bennett note that a comparable ban in the United States probably would be held unconstitutional. In Great Britain, however, the courts lack a similar power of judicial review, leaving the question of the Ban's legitimacy to the political process. While Great Britain enjoys a relatively free society, the authors conclude that government control over the British media poses troubling problems and suggests …

The Refugee Act Of 1980--What Burden Of Proof: Controversy Lives On After "Stevic", Jeffrey S. Bivins

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article explores the burden of proof debate. First, it delves into the historical developments leading up to the Refugee Act then focuses on the Refugee Act's legislative history and on case law prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Stevic. Second, the Article discusses the Stevic opinion and the interpretation of Stevic in subsequent circuit court decisions. Third, it analyzes Stevic and the subsequent cases. The Article concludes with a look at what the future holds for the Refugee Act.

Democracy And Distrust: A Theory Of Judicial Review, Michael Conant

Vanderbilt Law Review

This review is a critique of the major themes in Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review,' by Professor John Hart Ely of Harvard Law School. Ely primarily addresses the amount of discretion exercised by Supreme Court justices in deciding constitutional cases, a fundamental issue since few scholars today would contest the actual existence of the judicial review power of the Court. Ely's thorough scholarship presents a fine discussion of the Court's legitimacy when it extends its discretion beyond the base of the actual constitutional language. Professor Ely misses the mark, however, in his argument that certain open-ended constitutional …

First Amendment Restrictions On The Ftc's, Robert D. Eckinger

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court has suggested a "degree of protection"approach to reconcile the first amendment protection of commercial speech with the need to effectively regulate false or misleading advertising. In so doing, however, the Court has failed to establish clearly the judicial standard of review appropriate in examining regulative measures. In the absence of adequate guidance, several circuit court decisions have adopted an unjustified standard of strict judicial scrutiny. The continued use of this standard by the circuit courts in reviewing FTC decisions will present increasing institutional problems for the courts and will seriously undermine the Commission's ability to protect consumers …

The Less Restrictive Alternative In Constitutional Adjudication: An Analysis, A Justification, And Some Criteria, Robert M. Bastress, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The past two decades have witnessed enormous changes in both substantive constitutional law and the courts' approach to constitutional questions. The frequent application of the doctrine of less restrictive alternatives has been a factor of increasingly significant proportions in effecting these changes. Although the doctrine has long been part of our jurisprudence,' it did not begin to have a serious impact until the Warren Court years, and, despite its widely diversified use today, the concept is almost always applied without discussion. Succinctly and broadly stated, the doctrine requires that a state not employ a specific means to accomplish an admittedly …

Book Reviews, Max Rheinstein, Eugene V. Rostow, William O. Thweatt

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

By Mauro Cappelletti

Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1971. Pp. xi, 117. $8.50 ($4.50 student edition).

reviewer: Max Rheinstein

=========================

THE PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

Philip C. Jessup

New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Pp. ix, 82. $5.95.

reviewer: Eugene V. Rostow

======================

THREE WORLDS OF DEVELOPMENT: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL STRATIFICATION

By Irving Louis Horowitz

New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Pp. xxx, 556. $15.00 (Paperback, $3.50).

reviewer: William O. Thweatt

New Approaches By The Fpc / Scope Of Judicial Review, Charles E. Mccallum, Joel Porter

Vanderbilt Law Review

New Approaches By the FPC to the Regulation of Natural Gas Producers: an Evaluation

Since 1954 the independent producers of natural gas have been regulated by the Federal Power Commission, operating under the Natural Gas Act' as construed by the Supreme Court in the Phillips case. The results of this regulatory activity have been frustration and delay. Recently the Commission has taken steps to relieve some of its miseries. It has instituted a new approach to producer regulation, area pricing,and it has by regulation outlawed the use of certain contract provisions, indefinite price adjustment clauses, deemed especially harmful to the …

Judicial Review: Political Reality And Legislative Purpose: The Supreme Court's Supervision Of Congressional Investigations, Martin Shapiro

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court has long claimed the power to exercise judicial review over the investigatory activities of Congress. The most severe limitation the Court has imposed is the requirement of legislative purpose. Investigations must be conducted for the purpose of aiding Congress in making the laws. But the Court has also introduced the doctrine of presumption of legislative purpose. The Justices will presume that the investigating committee and the Congress which authorized it had a legislative purpose in pursuing the inquiry. It will be argued here that these two doctrines are completely inter-dependent; once legislative purpose was required, presumption was …

Judicial Review And Party Politics, Wallace Mendelson

Vanderbilt Law Review

It has been suggested that intrusion upon legislative policy by judicial review "is a consequence of that fragmentation of political power which is normal in the United States. No cohesive majority,such as normally exists in Britain, would permit a politically irresponsible judiciary to usurp decision--making [policy] functions, but, for complex social and institutional reasons, there are few issues in the United States on which cohesive majorities exist." When they do exist, as in the recent tidal wave of anti-communism, the Supreme Court is not apt to test its strength against them. Rather it practices a judicious self-restraint. Distinguishing between parliamentary …

Constitutional Law -- 1958 Tennessee Survey, Elvin E. Overton

Vanderbilt Law Review

State constitutional law decisions, lacking the universality of application of many other fields of the law, are vital and of significance frequently only to the local bar and local public officials. There is another difference between state constitutional law decisions, and federal constitutional law decisions: state courts are inclined to deal with state constitutional issues with an emphasis on the pragmatic problem of deciding the case and getting it out of the way,rather than with an emphasis on completing the blue print-of seeking to establish the general principle which reflects the conflicting policies struggling for recognition. In most United States …