Law Commons^™

Constitutional Injury And Tangibility, Rachel Bayefsky

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court, in the 2016 case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, announced a framework for determining whether a plaintiff had alleged an injury that would permit entry into federal court. The Court indicated that a plaintiff, in order to have constitutional standing, needed to suffer harm that was “concrete” or “real.” In explaining how courts could ascertain whether an alleged harm was concrete, the Court created a category of “intangible” harm subject to a distinctive, and arguably more demanding, concreteness inquiry than “tangible” harm, a category that seemingly includes only physical or economic harm. In particular, Spokeo directed courts …

Legislative Exhaustion, Michael Sant’Ambrogio

William & Mary Law Review

Legislative lawsuits are a recurring by-product of divided government. Yet the Supreme Court has never definitively resolved whether Congress may sue the executive branch over its execution of the law. Some scholars argue that Congress should be able to establish Article III standing when its interests are harmed by executive action or inaction just like private parties. Others, including most prominently the late Justice Antonin Scalia, argue that intergovernmental disputes do not constitute Article III “cases” or “controversies” at all. Rather, the Framers envisioned the political branches resolving their differences through nonjudicial means.

This Article proposes a different approach to …

Protean Statutory Interpretation In The Courts Of Appeals, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

William & Mary Law Review

This Article is the first in-depth empirical and doctrinal analysis of differences in statutory interpretation between the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. It is also among the first to anticipate how the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach may shift with the passing of Justice Scalia.

We begin by identifying factors that may contribute to interpretive divergence between the two judicial levels, based on their different institutional structures and operational realities. In doing so, we discuss normative implications that may follow from the prospect of such interpretive divergence. We then examine how three circuit courts have used dictionaries and legislative …

Speech, Intent, And The Chilling Effect, Leslie Kendrick

William & Mary Law Review

Speaker’s intent requirements are a common but unremarked feature of First Amendment law. From the “actual malice” standard for defamation to the specific-intent requirement for incitement, many types of expression are protected or unprotected depending on the state of mind with which they are said. To the extent that courts and commentators have considered why speaker’s intent should determine First Amendment protection, they have relied upon the chilling effect. On this view, imposing strict liability for harmful speech, such as defamatory statements, would overdeter, or chill, valuable speech, such as true political information. Intent requirements are necessary prophylactically to provide …

Textualism, Constitutionalism, And Federal Statutes, Jerry L. Mashaw

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Humor, Defamation And Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress: The Potential Predicament For Private Figure Plaintiffs, Catherine L. Amspacher, Randel Steven Springer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Development Of The Parent-Child Testimonial Privilege: Too Big For Its Britches?, Gregory W. Franklin

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reputation, Compensation, And Proof, David A. Anderson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Carlson V. Green: The Inference Of A Constitutional Cause Or Action Despite The Availability Of A Federal Tort Claims Act Remedy, Gregory P. Williams

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mead Data Central, Inc. V. United States Department Of The Air Force: Extending The Foia's Fifth Exemption

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amendment Of The Seventh Exemption Under The Freedom Of Information Act

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Wife's Consent To Search And Seizure Of Husband's Property Held Not Sufficient To Waive Constitutional Rights Protecting Husband. State V. Hall, 142 S.E.2d 177 (1965)., R. H. Kraftson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Right To Counsel - Gideon V. Wainright Made Retroactive. United States Ex Rel. Durocher V. Lavallee, 330 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1964), Jeffery Graham

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.