Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib
Are The Federal Rules Of Evidence Unconstitutional?, Ethan J. Leib
Faculty Scholarship
The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) rest on an unacceptably shaky constitutional foundation. Unlike other regimes of federal rulemaking—for Civil Procedure, for Criminal Procedure, and for Appellate Procedure—the FRE rulemaking process contemplated by the Rules Enabling Act is both formally and functionally defective because Congress enacted the FRE as a statute first but purports to permit the Supreme Court to revise, repeal, and amend those laws over time, operating as a kind of supercharged administrative agency with the authority to countermand congressional statutes. Formally, this system violates the constitutionally-delineated separation of powers as announced in Chadha, Clinton, and the non-delegation …
Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green
Can The Fourth Amendment Keep People "Secure In Their Persons"?, Bruce A. Green
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Case-Linked Jurisdiction And Busybody States, Howard M. Erichson, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin Zipursky
Case-Linked Jurisdiction And Busybody States, Howard M. Erichson, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin Zipursky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
What's The Difference Between A Conclusion And A Fact?, Howard M. Erichson
What's The Difference Between A Conclusion And A Fact?, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, building on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to treat a complaint’s conclusions differently from allegations of fact. Facts, but not conclusions, are assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. The Court did little to help judges or lawyers understand this elusive distinction, and, indeed, obscured the distinction with its language. The Court said it was distinguishing “legal conclusions” from factual allegations. The application in Twombly and Iqbal, however, shows that the relevant distinction is not between law and fact, but rather between different types of factual assertions. This …