Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Demise Of The Bivens Remedy Is Rendering Enforcement Of Federal Constitutional Rights Inequitable But Congress Can Fix It, Henry Rose
Faculty Publications & Other Works
A federal statute, 42 U.S.C. 1983, allows a person whose federal constitutional rights are violated by state actors to sue them for damages to compensate for the harm caused by the constitutional violations. There is no analogous federal statute that allows a person whose federal constitutional rights have been violated by federal actors to sue them for damages to compensate for the harm caused by the constitutional violations. The United States Supreme Court allowed Webster Bivens, a man who sued federal law enforcement officials for falsely arresting and physically abusing him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, to sue …
Compelled Speech And Proportionality, Alexander Tsesis
Compelled Speech And Proportionality, Alexander Tsesis
Faculty Publications & Other Works
This Article argues for a proportional First Amendment approach to compelled speech jurisprudence. It discusses the evolution of doctrine and how it led to recent opinions finding unconstitutional consumer protection, health disclosure, and collective bargaining statutes. In place of the currently formalistic approach, the Article argues for a transparent balancing of interests to avoid litigants’ opportunistic reliance on categorical First Amendment doctrines. Missing from the recent decisions that relied on the compelled speech doctrine is any systematic or contextual weighing of private and public concerns about disclosure regulations. The Roberts Court has been rather formalistic and categorical in its compelled …
The Supreme Court And The People: Communicating Decisions To The Public, Barry Sullivan, Ramon Feldbrin
The Supreme Court And The People: Communicating Decisions To The Public, Barry Sullivan, Ramon Feldbrin
Faculty Publications & Other Works
Although the individual Justices of the Supreme Court frequently speak to the public, the Court as an entity holds fast to the purportedly ancient principle that courts should speak only through their official written opinions—the meaning of which is for others to figure out. Over the years, the Court’s decisions have become more complex, prolix, and fractured, making it difficult and time-consuming for anyone outside the professional elites to determine what the Court has held. Even journalists, who attempt to explain the Court’s decisions to the public, struggle to make sense of the Justices’ opinions under the pressures generated by …