Law Commons^™

When Judges Were Enjoined: Text And Tradition In The Federal Review Of State Judicial Action, Alexandra Nickerson, Kellen R. Funk

Faculty Scholarship

It is virtually a tenet of modern federal jurisdiction that judges, at least when they are acting as judges, are inappropriate defendants in civil suits. Yet on rare but salient occasions, state judges might be the sole or primary party responsible for violating the constitutional rights of citizens, for instance by imposing excessive bail or by opening their courtrooms to oppressive private suits like those under Texas’s Senate Bill 8 bounty regime. In such cases, injunctive relief against judicial officers may be the only or most effective remedy against constitutional violations, but federal courts from the trial level up to …

Foreword, National Injunctions: What Does The Future Hold?, Suzette Malveaux

Publications

This Foreword is to the 27th Annual Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. Conference, National Injunctions: What Does the Future Hold?, which was hosted by The Byron R. White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Law School, on Apr. 5, 2019.

Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco

Robert Probasco

A citizen’s civil rights include protections against certain actions by three different governments – federal, state, and tribal. If the federal or a state government violates your civil rights, you can seek a remedy in federal court, including injunctive or declaratory judgment and damages. But the Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez that that – other than habeas corpus relief – you cannot challenge a civil rights violation by an Indian tribe in federal court. The decision has resulted in a significant amount of controversy and proposals that Congress explicitly grant such jurisdiction. This article reviews the …

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Custom Claims And The Code Of Silence, Myriam Gilles

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equality And The European Union, Elizabeth F. Defeis

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

David R. Cleveland

While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Slides: Meaningful Engagement: The Public's Role In Resource Decisions, Mark Squillace

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

Presenter: Mark Squillace, Director, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School

22 slides

Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco

Faculty Scholarship

A citizen’s civil rights include protections against certain actions by three different governments – federal, state, and tribal. If the federal or a state government violates your civil rights, you can seek a remedy in federal court, including injunctive or declaratory judgment and damages. But the Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez that that – other than habeas corpus relief – you cannot challenge a civil rights violation by an Indian tribe in federal court. The decision has resulted in a significant amount of controversy and proposals that Congress explicitly grant such jurisdiction. This article reviews the …

Does The Tax Injunction Act Of 1937 Affect State Court Jurisdiction Over State Tax Challenges Under Section 1983 Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1871?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administrative Law: Due Process Requirements Of Notice And Hearing Apply To Native Claims Under Administrative Procedure Act; Civil Rights: Challenging Tribal Membership Ordinance; Criminal Law: Nor Prejudice To Indian Defendant Sentenced Under State Due To Additional Or Alternative Fina Authorized By Federal Statute; Due Process: Tribal Elections And The Indian Civil Rights Act; Environment: Standing Of Non-Indians To Challenge Validity Of Coal Leases On Indian Land; Evidence: Indian Concept Of "Toka" As Concerning Issues Of Provocation And Justification; Indian Civil Rights Act: Residency Requirements For Tribal Political Office Upheld; Indian Lands: Quiet Title Action By Indian Allottees Against Railroad Holding Easement In The Nature Of A Limited Fee; Jurisdiction: Adoption Where All Parties Are Residents Of An Indian Reservation; Jurisdiction: New Mexico State Constitution As Affecting Adjudication Of Indian Water Rights; Taxation: State Right Of Taxation On Reservations When Commerce Effectuated Between Indians And Non-Indians

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Removal And Injunction To Protect Political Expression And Racial Equality: A Proposed Change, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.