Law Commons^™

Aggregate Stare Decisis, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Indiana Law Journal

The fate of stare decisis hangs in the wind. Different factions of the Supreme Court are now engaged in open debate—echoing decades of scholarship—about the doctrine’s role in our constitutional system. Broadly speaking, two camps have emerged. The first embraces the orthodox view that stare decisis should reflect “neutral principles” that run orthogonal to a case’s merits; otherwise, it will be incapable of keeping the law stable over time. The second argues that insulating stare decisis from the underlying merits has always been a conceptual mistake. Instead, the doctrine should focus more explicitly on the merits—by diagnosing the magnitude of …

What's The Harm? Federalism, The Separation Of Powers, And Standing In Data Breach Litigation, Grayson Wells

Indiana Law Journal

This Comment will argue that the Supreme Court should analyze standing in data breach litigation under a standard that is deferential to state statutory and common law. Specifically, federal standing analysis should look to state law when determining whether an injury is concrete such that the injury-in-fact requirement is met. Some argue that allowing more data breach cases to proceed to the merits could lead to an explosion of successful litigation and settlements, burdening the federal courts and causing economic losses for the breached businesses. These concerns may be valid. But if state law provides a remedy to the harm …

Congress's Competing Motivations: What Chevron Can Tell Us About Constitutional Acquiescence, George Krug

Indiana Law Journal

This Note asks under what conditions the Supreme Court would find evidence of post- Founding historical practice persuasive in separation of powers debates. This Note focuses on two theories of how evidence of a long-standing historical practice might be relevant in separation of powers disputes: constitutional liquidation and historical gloss. According to both theories, the authority of a long-standing historical practice depends in part on the motivations driving the relevant branch of government to engage in that practice. Current scholarship on constitutional liquidation and historical gloss, however, has not yet explored fully these motivations in a way that recognizes the …

The Kavanaugh Court And The Schechter-To-Chevron Spectrum: How The New Supreme Court Will Make The Administrative State More Democratically Accountable, Justin Walker

Indiana Law Journal

In a typical year, Congress passes roughly 800 pages of law—that’s about a seveninch

stack of paper. But in the same year, federal administrative agencies promulgate

80,000 pages of regulations—which makes an eleven-foot paper pillar. This move

toward electorally unaccountable administrators deciding federal policy began in

1935, accelerated in the 1940s, and has peaked in the recent decades. Rather than

elected representatives, unelected bureaucrats increasingly make the vast majority

of the nation’s laws—a trend facilitated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in three

areas: delegation, deference, and independence.

This trend is about to be reversed. In the coming years, Congress will …

Taming Sherman's Wilderness, Derrian Smith

Indiana Law Journal

This Note proceeds in four Parts. Part I outlines the interpretive difficulties spawned by the vagueness of the Sherman Act—particularly, the judiciary’s necessary but undeniable departures from the text of the statute and the resulting doctrinal confusion. Part II considers ways in which the judiciary’s decision-making in Sherman Act cases approximates agency rulemaking and whether it makes sense to delegate interpretive authority to an antitrust agency. Yet, while the agency solution has upside, it would not easily escape criticisms that the Act does not provide sufficient notice of the conduct it proscribes and that the Act is an impermissible delegation …

Executive Branch Fact Deference As A Separation Of Powers Principle, Emily A. Kile

Indiana Law Journal

This Note concludes that, although Zivotofsky I provides a basis for judicial review of the legality of the Obama Administration’s “hostilities” determination (and, by extension, other questions of statutory interpretation related to foreign affairs), that review could be blunted by judicial deference to the executive branch’s factual determinations relevant to whether the Libyan airstrikes constituted “hostilities” within the War Powers Resolution. By addressing the political question doctrine’s history and the response to Zivotofsky I, this Note will explore whether the political question doctrine—particularly in cases of statutory interpretation—has lost some of its force as a justiciability doctrine. This Note will …

Facial Challenges And Separation Of Powers, Luke Meier

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitution As Architecture: Legislative And Administrative Courts Under Article Iii, Paul M. Bator

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Paul Bator: Legislative and Administrative Courts Under Article III

The Constitution As Architecture: A Charette, Larry Kramer

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Paul Bator: Legislative and Administrative Courts Under Article III

Separation, Politics And Judicial Activism, Wallace Mendelson

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Separation of Powers

Introduction To The Separation Of Powers Symposium

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers And International Executive Agreements, Arthur W. Rovine

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Separation of Powers

Separation Of Powers: The Phenomenon Of Legislative Courts, Edwin H. Greenebaum, W. Willard Wirtz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Jurisdiction Of Courts (Part 3), Bernard C. Gavit

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Jurisdiction Of Courts (Part 2), Bernard C. Gavit

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Jurisdiction Of Courts (Part 1), Bernard C. Gavit

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.