Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (5)
- Supreme Court (5)
- Constitutional Convention (2)
- Federalism (2)
- Partisan politics (2)
-
- AT&T (1)
- Agostini (1)
- Aguilar (1)
- Antonin Scalia (1)
- Article III (1)
- Attorney (1)
- Body Armor Act (1)
- California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (1)
- Cellco Partnership (1)
- Circuit split (1)
- City of hays (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional transformation (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal trial (1)
- Democrat (1)
- Depoliticize (1)
- Dormant Commerce Clause (1)
- Economic protectionism (1)
- Eleventh Amendment (1)
- Eleventh Amendment immunity (1)
- Equal Protection (1)
- Ericsson (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron
The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron
Pepperdine Law Review
The underlying purpose of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the HEAR Act), which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective of this country since the conclusion of World War II. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable …
Ericsson, Inc. V. Regents Of The University Of Minnesota And A New Frontier For The Waiver By Litigation Conduct Doctrine, Jason Kornmehl
Ericsson, Inc. V. Regents Of The University Of Minnesota And A New Frontier For The Waiver By Litigation Conduct Doctrine, Jason Kornmehl
Pepperdine Law Review
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity is one of the most confusing areas of constitutional law. The waiver by litigation conduct doctrine represents a particularly complex aspect of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Courts, for example, have not precisely defined the extent to which waiver in a prior proceeding might extend to a future one. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board recently considered this issue in a novel context. In Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board applied the waiver by litigation conduct doctrine in an inter partes review proceeding. Combining the Eleventh Amendment, non-Article III …
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Pepperdine Law Review
The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
Pepperdine Law Review
Lower courts face a dilemma when forced to choose between older Supreme Court precedent that directly controls the present legal dispute and an intervening Supreme Court ruling that relies on rationale which erodes or undermines the rationale of the direct precedent. Nearly thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced a rule requiring lower courts to follow the older precedent and disregard any inconsistency resulting from intervening rulings, effectively barring lower courts from “under-ruling” the older Supreme Court precedent. This prohibition on “under-ruling,” here referred to as the “Agostini Rule,” reflects a departure from the core rule-of-law values requiring similar cases …
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Pepperdine Law Review
A convention is a practice not memorialized in a formal rule but regularly engaged in out of a sense of obligation, where the sense of obligation arises from the view that adhering to the practice serves valuable goals of institutional organization and the public good. Constitutional conventions are important in making it possible for the national government to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble. Over the past twenty years or so, however, such conventions have eroded. This article addresses the role and importance of constitutional conventions in the United States, arguing that conventions’ erosion has been accompanied by …
Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco
Taking The Fifth: How The Tenth Circuit Determined The Right Against Self-Incrimination Is "More Than A Trial Right" In Vogt V. City Of Hays, Daniel J. De Cecco
Pepperdine Law Review
In Vogt v. City of Hays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is more than a trial right and applies to the use of compelled statements in probable cause hearings as well as in criminal trials. While the Self-Incrimination Clause states that the right applies “in a criminal case,” there is a circuit split regarding the definition of a “criminal case.” The Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in finding that the right against self-incrimination applies to more than a trial, relying on the common …
How Law Employs Historical Narratives: The Great Compromise As An Example, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
How Law Employs Historical Narratives: The Great Compromise As An Example, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
Although historians base their interpretations on facts, they often use the same facts to tell a variety of stories. Of the varying stories, which gain acceptance by society and the courts? To explore this question, this Article examines the historiography of the Great Compromise. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the deputies debated how to elect members of the House and Senate. Should each state have equal representation or should each state have representation based on its population? The heavily populated states wanted population-based (proportional) representation while the less populated states wanted a one-state-one-vote system. After difficult debates, the Convention, by …
Economic Protectionism: Irrationally Constitutional, Joshua Park
Economic Protectionism: Irrationally Constitutional, Joshua Park
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution is built on the principle that all citizens are created equal. Naturally, we believe that no law should be passed solely for the sake of benefiting one group over another. Yet, governments continue to pass economic regulations that have no purpose other than maintaining wealth within a specific group, and the judiciary continues to uphold such regulations. While the judiciary purports to uphold challenged legislation only if it passes “rational basis review,” the term “review” is a misnomer because the analysis has essentially become automatic deference. Under the judiciary’s modern treatment of the Equal Protection Clause, successfully challenging …