Law Commons^™

Government Election Advocacy: Implications Of Recent Supreme Court Analysis, Steven J. Andre

Steven J. Andre

The constitutional issue presented by government partisanship in elections is becoming increasingly significant for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high Court’s decisions in Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Citizens United v. FEC and Pleasant Grove City v. Summum shed significant light on how the high Court would handle the government campaigning question if it should ever accept review on the issue. This article reviews lower court treatment of the problem and describes the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis of election and First Amendment concerns and applies that analysis to the question of partisan government expenditures during election contests.

Can He Legally Do That? Does The President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?, Robert V. Percival

Robert Percival

No abstract provided.

The Full Faith And Credit Clause: Do Factual Executive Documents Require Equivalent Treatment Between States?, Darren Prum

Darren A. Prum

Largely a development of the last half-century of government expansion, many of the health, safety, and welfare protections required by the federal government now fall upon the states. With the states picking up the load, many of the jurisdictions elect to administrate these duties through agencies. These agencies promulgate numerous regulations and enforce them as well. In making these laws and regulations, the government may require the public to submit documents that convey factual information in order to achieve the overall policy goal.

During these interactions with the public, the statute or regulations provide the guidance as to what qualifies …

Disclosure's Effects: Wikileaks And Transparency, Mark Fenster

Mark Fenster

Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right To Appointed Counsel For Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings, Mark Noferi

Mark L Noferi

When a Department of Homeland Security officer mandatorily detains a green card holder without bail pending his removal proceedings, for a minor crime committed perhaps long ago, the immigrant’s life takes a drastic turn. If he contests his case, he likely will remain incarcerated in substandard conditions for months or years, often longer than for his original crime, and be unable to acquire a lawyer, access family whom might assist, or access key evidence or witnesses. In these circumstances, it is all but certain he will lose his deportation case, sometimes wrongfully, and be banished abroad from work, family, and …

Bridging The Divide: Finding Common Ground On The Modern Chevron Debate, Nicholas C. Stewart

Nicholas C Stewart

Traditionally, when reviewing an administrative agency’s adjudication or rulemaking under National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111 (1944), courts would ask whether the question before them was one of law or a mixed question of law and fact. While the former was accorded no deference, the latter received a great deal. Despite this seemingly simple construct, courts persistently confused questions of law with mixed questions, and vice versa, resulting in the inconsistent application of standards of review. In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court drastically …

Access To Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Jama V Minister For Social Protection, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This case involves the important issue of access to the decisions of social welfare appeals officers. The Irish High Court concluded that there was no duty on the Department to maintain a database or open library of decisions to which the public may have access and, therefore, no question of a right of access thereto arose. However, it is submitted that the legal analysis of the general issue is doubtful.