Law Commons^™

Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has begun to regulate non-capital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Though both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate lines of doctrine respond to structural imbalances in non-capital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on …

The Real Constitutional Problem With The Affordable Care Act, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Timothy S. Jost

Not available.

Interpretation And Interdependence: How Judges Use The Avoidance Canon In Separation Of Powers Cases, Brian C. Murchison

Brian C. Murchison

None available.

Law Enforcement And The Separation Of Powers, Gerard V. Bradley

Gerard V. Bradley

No abstract provided.

Executive Power In Youngstown's Shadows, Patricia L. Bellia

Patricia L. Bellia

Fifty years after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is among the most important of the Court's separation of powers cases. This Article explores two quite different legacies of the Youngstown case. First, Youngstown has a symbolic or rhetorical power, in that it stands as an example of a court invalidating the actions of a coordinate branch of government in a politically delicate context. When a court wields this weapon, it can take some cover in Youngstown's shadows, and the possibility of a court exercising this power disciplines the executive …

The Federal Common Law Of Nations, Anthony J. Bellia, Bradford R. Clark

Anthony J. Bellia

Courts and scholars have vigorously debated the proper role of customary international law in American courts: To what extent should it be considered federal common law, state law, or general law? The debate has reached something of an impasse, in part because various positions rely on, but also are in tension with, historical practice and constitutional structure. This Article describes the role that the law of nations actually has played throughout American history. In keeping with the original constitutional design, federal courts for much of that history enforced certain rules respecting other nations' perfect rights (or close analogues) under the …

State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Scholars have long debated the separation of powers question of what judicial power federal courts have under Article III of the Constitution in the enterprise of interpreting federal statutes. Specifically, scholars have debated whether, in light of Founding-era English and state court judicial practice, the judicial power of the United States should be understood as a power to interpret statutes dynamically or as faithful agents of Congress. This Article argues that the question of how courts should interpret federal statutes is one not only of separation of powers but of federalism as well. State courts have a vital and often …

Amicus Briefs Of The National Association Of Consumer Advocates In Day V. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), Brian Wolfman

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

These amicus briefs are likely to interest legal academics and practitioners who write, research, and practice in the areas of (1) federal courts, (2) class actions, (3) separation of powers, (4) constitutional law more generally, and (4) federal litigation.

In Day v. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), an absent class member objected to a class-action settlement. The objector argued that the settlement was unfair because, among other reasons, it provided no monetary recovery to the class members. In the district court, prior to class certification and settlement, the defendants and the named plaintiff had consented …

Striking A Balance: The Speech Or Debate Clause’S Testimonial Privilege And Policing Government Corruption, Jay Rothrock

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Florida's Aljs: Maintaining A Different Balance , F. Scott Boyd

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Agency Exercise Of Legislative Power And Alj Veto Authority, Daniel Manry

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Question Of Constitutionality: How Separate Are The Powers? The Administrative And Social Ramifications Of Lockyer V. City And County Of San Francisco, Kristin Ecklund

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

When Administrative Law Judges Rule The World: Wooley V. State Farm - Does A Denial Of Agency-Initiated Judicial Review Of Alj Final Orders Violate The Constitutional Doctrine Of Separation Of Powers?, April Rolen-Ogden

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Powers Of Congress And The President On Matters That Affect U.S. Foreign Affairs, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Separation Of Powers, Constitutionalism And Governance In Africa: The Case Of Modern Cameroon, John Mukum Mbaku

JOHN MUKUM MBAKU

The Separation of Powers, Constitutionalism and Governance in Africa: The Case of Modern Cameroon

John Mukum Mbaku, Esq.

Abstract

Countries incorporate the principle of the separation of powers in their constitutions in an effort to meet several goals, the most important of which is to minimize government-induced tyranny. Specifically, countries that make this principle part of their constitutional practice intend to limit public servants by national laws and institutions, enhance government accountability, minimize opportunistic behaviors by civil servants and politicians, provide for checks and balances, and generally improve government efficiency. Cameroon, like many other African countries that transitioned to democratic …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

Resolving The Alj Quandary, Kent H. Barnett

Scholarly Works

Three competing constitutional and practical concerns surround federal administrative law judges (“ALJs”), who preside over all formal adjudications within the executive branch. First, if ALJs are “inferior Officers” (not mere employees), as five current Supreme Court Justices have suggested, the current method of selecting many ALJs likely violates the Appointments Clause. Second, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reserved the question whether the statutory protections that prevent ALJs from being fired at will impermissibly impinge upon the President’s supervisory power under Article II. Third, these same protections from removal may, on the other hand, be too limited to satisfy impartiality …

A Convenient Path For The Brazilian Branches Of Government: Executive Supremacy, Carlos Bolonha

Schmooze 'tickets'

No abstract provided.

Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld a Congressional decision which excluded women from registration for service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Although the case was brought based upon equal protection grounds, the majority took a separation of powers stance and based its decision upon the fact that the Court has traditionally granted deference to the decisions of Congress in the area of military affairs. The minority opinions disagreed with the majority's analysis and claimed that the central issue in Rostker was not military in nature, but was that Congress' plan to register males only, promoted …

The Confrontation Of The Legislative And Executive Branches: An Examination Of The Constitutional Balance Of Powers And The Role Of The Attorney General, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States Constitution created an internally dependent tripartite governing scheme which relied upon a carefully drafted system of checks and balances as a means of self-regulation. Recent years have seen increased conflicts between the separate branches, the most recent of which is the occasion for this article. The article traces the rise and fall of the power exercised by the various branches and then focuses on the recent confrontation between Congress and the executive branch concerning the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency and the subsequent resignation of Anne McGill Burford. Of particular interest to this inquiry is the …

The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Statutory Proximate Cause, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Federal statutes often use general causal language to describe how an actor’s conduct must be connected to harm for liability to attach. For example, a statute might state that harm must be “because of” certain conduct. Federal courts have recently relied on this general causal language and other arguments to apply the common law idea of proximate cause to several federal statutes.

While legal scholarship has explored the relationship between statutes and the common law generally, it has not considered whether particular common law doctrines are especially problematic in the statutory context. This Article argues that using proximate cause in …

Collaborative Departmentalism, Matthew Steilen

Journal Articles

This article examines the effect of departmentalism on presidential compliance with constitutional law. Most commentators agree that departmentalism weakens the influence of courts in the determination of constitutional meaning and the control of non-judicial actors. The article takes a different view. It defines “moderate departmentalism” as the authority of the President to refuse to adopt a constitutional interpretation announced by the Supreme Court. Drawing on ideas developed in the literature on “new governance” and administrative law, it then argues that moderate departmentalism increases the capacity of the federal courts to control presidential conduct.

Defining, Punishing, And Membership In The Community Of Nations: Material Support And Conspiracy Charges In Military Commissions, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on Congress’s authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, declaring that the constitutionality of such legislation has “never been tested.” Roberts’ comments not only raise important questions about the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, they also call into question the constitutionality of a number of existing and proposed ethics statutes. Thus, the topic deserves close attention.

This Essay contends that Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, just as it has exercised control over other vital aspects of the …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

Freedom Of Expression In Post-Soviet Russia, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article assesses the freedom of expression in Russia and prospects for its future: what has the Russian state promised its citizens, in what legal forms have those promises been made, and how well are those paper promises being kept in practice? The Article considers recent state actions and statutes enacted to regulate speech, association, and other forms of expression, and determines that these are possible because of the very weak separation of powers in the Russian Federation. The Article concludes by looking at the European Convention on Human Rights as one hope for a power capable of exerting influence …

Reconceptualizing States Of Emergency Under International Human Rights Law: Theory, Legal Doctrine, And Politics, Scott P. Sheeran

Michigan Journal of International Law

States of emergency are today one of the most serious challenges to the implementation of international human rights law (IHRL). They have become common practice and are associated with severe human rights violations as evidenced by the Arab Spring. The international jurisprudence on states of emergency is inconsistent and divergent, and what now constitutes a public emergency is ubiquitous. This trend is underpinned by excessive judicial deference and abdication of the legal review of states' often dubious claims of a state of emergency. The legal regime, as positively expressed in international human rights treaties, does not adequately reflect the underlying …

A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …

In Praise Of Judge Fletcher-And Of General Standing Principles, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.