Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon individuals for offenses against the United States. Courts have interpreted this power broadly, and the American public has historically accepted its use, even in the face of several controversial pardons over the last five decades. However, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio—a former Arizona sheriff who was held in criminal contempt of court for continuing to illegally detain suspected undocumented immigrants—scholars, activists, and political figures questioned whether this pardon was unconstitutional. This Comment discusses the Court’s interpretation of the pardoning power, controversial pardons in modern history, and the details of the …
Judicial Review And Constitutional Interpretation In Afghanistan: A Case Of Inconsistency, Shoaib Timory
Judicial Review And Constitutional Interpretation In Afghanistan: A Case Of Inconsistency, Shoaib Timory
Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutionally Incapable: Parole Boards As Sentencing Courts, Mae C. Quinn
Constitutionally Incapable: Parole Boards As Sentencing Courts, Mae C. Quinn
Journal Articles
Courtroom sentencing, as part of the judicial process, is a long-standing norm in the justice system of the United States. But this basic criminal law precept is currently under quiet attack. This is because some states are now allowing parole boards to step in to decide criminal penalties without first affording defendants lawful judicial branch sentencing proceedings and sentences. These outside-of-court punishment decisions are occurring in the cases of youthful offenders entitled to sentencing relief under Miller v. Alabama, which outlawed automatic life-without-parole sentences for children. Thus, some Miller-impacted defendants are being sentenced by paroleboards as executive branch agents, rather …
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards
Advanced Research Winner 2019:
While the concept of substantive due process has guided judicial decision making even prior to the Civil War, it has become a lightning rod among the juristic community especially since the 1960s. This controversy includes issues ranging from the applicability and reliability to the cogency and legitimacy of the doctrine of substantive due process Many scholars attribute the skepticism toward the concept of substantive due process to be the result of a paradigm shift in the middle of the 20th century when this concept transitioned from an economic and property rights based approach to one …
State Courts And Democratic Theory: Toward A Theory Of State Constitutional Judicial Review, David Schultz
State Courts And Democratic Theory: Toward A Theory Of State Constitutional Judicial Review, David Schultz
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Most Revealing Word In The United States Report, Richard Primus
The Most Revealing Word In The United States Report, Richard Primus
Articles
The most prominent issue in NFIB v. Sebelius was whether Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause stops at a point marked by a distinction between “activity” and “inactivity.” According to the law’s challengers, prior decisions about the scope of the commerce power already reflected the importance of the distinction between action and inaction. In all of the previous cases in which exercises of the commerce power had been sustained, the challengers argued, that power had been used to regulate activity. Never had Congress tried to regulate mere inactivity. In NFIB, four Justices rejected that contention, writing that such …
Disgorging Emoluments, Caprice L. Roberts
Disgorging Emoluments, Caprice L. Roberts
Marquette Law Review
This Article is about unjust enrichment. It includes a theory of an unjust
enrichment cause of action against executive actors who receive unlawful
emoluments. Interpretations of the boundaries of unlawful emoluments range
from receipt of a gift or benefit because of the position of power held to quid
pro quo exchanges of a thing of value in exchange for government information
or advantage. Wherever the proper line, the purpose of the law of unjust
enrichment is to prevent and undo benefits one has no right to retain. It
achieves those goals with the use of restitution remedies including
disgorgement of …