Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Federalization Of Punitive Damages And The Effect On Illinois Law, Frank A. Perrecone, Lisa R. Fabiano
The Federalization Of Punitive Damages And The Effect On Illinois Law, Frank A. Perrecone, Lisa R. Fabiano
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Punitive damages have traditionally been a matter of state law, left to state courts and legislatures to review and regulate. But in the midst of the tort reform movement of the 1990s, the United States Supreme Court took sides in the policy debate, fashioning a novel substantive due process right limiting punitive damage awards and suppressing the power of juries to punish and deter egregious conduct. This article traces the evolution of the federalization of punitive damages based on questionable authority, criticizes the Supreme Court's intrusion into an area of state law, demonstrates how Supreme Court precedent has been misapplied …
The Almost Rise And Not Quite Fall Of The Political Gerrymander, Michael J. Kasper
The Almost Rise And Not Quite Fall Of The Political Gerrymander, Michael J. Kasper
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This article discusses what future, if any, political gerrymandering claims have in light of the Supreme Court's decision in LULAC v. Perry, the Texas redistricting case. The article also examines the various methods and standards that have been proposed, and ultimately rejected, for measuring partisan gerrymandering claims since the Supreme Court first addressed the issue in 1986. Finally, the article considers the effectiveness of the political gerrymander as a method of political party entrenchment.
Return Of The Native? An Assessment Of The Citizenship Renunciation Clause In Hamdi's Settlement Agreement In The Light Of Citizenship Jurisprudence, Saad Gul
Northern Illinois University Law Review
The article examines the circumstances under which Yasser Hamdi, an American born detainee in the War on Terror, renounced his U.S. citizenship. The article analyzes Supreme Court jurisprudence on the loss of citizenship since Afroyim v. Rusk. Through the prism of the historically competing considerations of national security and sacrosanct nature of citizenship, it evaluates the conditions under which Hamdi undertook his action, and their effect on its legal validity. Given the factual background of the case, and the jurisprudential contours of past citizenship doctrine, it concludes that Hamdi can probably regain his citizenship should he ever seek to do …
Institutions Of Learning Or Havens For Illegal Activities: How The Supreme Court Views Libraries, Raizel Liebler
Institutions Of Learning Or Havens For Illegal Activities: How The Supreme Court Views Libraries, Raizel Liebler
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This article examines the three major Supreme Court cases, Brown, Pico, and American Library Association, which span a period of almost 30 years and address the appropriate role of libraries and the activities allowed within library premises. The scope of the cases includes the legality of silent protests in libraries, the removal of print materials from libraries, and implementing filters for Internet content. These cases exemplify the important struggle over the larger role of libraries in society. The Court has attempted to walk a fine line between viewing libraries as purveyors of high culture and dangerous places. An uncertainty about …
In Defense Of Federalism: The Need For A Federal Institutional Defender Of State Interests, Kory A. Atkinson
In Defense Of Federalism: The Need For A Federal Institutional Defender Of State Interests, Kory A. Atkinson
Northern Illinois University Law Review
In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the United States Supreme Court struck down the state of Arizona's death penalty procedure as violative of the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury. The Ring case is noteworthy because the Supreme Court upheld the identical procedure under the same constitutional provision twelve years earlier in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990). The Ring case raises a serious constitutional issue because the high Court reaffirmed its decision upholding Arizona's death penalty procedure twice during those twelve years. The issue is this: what recourse does the state of Arizona have against …
The 2002 Supreme Court Decisions: Did They Leave Enough Of Apprendi To Effectively Protect Criminal Defendants?, Charlotte Leclercq
The 2002 Supreme Court Decisions: Did They Leave Enough Of Apprendi To Effectively Protect Criminal Defendants?, Charlotte Leclercq
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This comment explores the true impact of the 2000 landmark decision, Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which the United States Supreme Court determined that any fact that increases a criminal defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum has to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time, the decision appeared to be a triumph for the procedural due process rights of defendants. However the opinion of the majority, as well as those of the concurrence and dissents, left the actual effect of the decision subject to considerable debate among courts and commentators. In 2002 the …
A Return To States' Rights? The Rehnquist Court Revives Federalism, Melanie K. St. Clair
A Return To States' Rights? The Rehnquist Court Revives Federalism, Melanie K. St. Clair
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This comment examines three decisions of the 1997 Supreme Court Term in which the Court invalidated Federal laws: Printz v. United States, City of Boerne v. Flores, and Reno v. ACLU. This comment looks for a unifying trend in the decisions in an effort to determine if the Court is moving in a new philosophical direction. The author suggests that the decisions do signal a renewed commitment to States' rights and federalism. Further, the decisions reveal the Court's antagonism toward the largess and enlarged scope of Congress. The author suggests that the decisions are an attempt by the Court to …
Bmw Of North America V. Gore: A Misplaced Guide For Punitive Damage Awards, Michelle J. Carey
Bmw Of North America V. Gore: A Misplaced Guide For Punitive Damage Awards, Michelle J. Carey
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This casenote examines the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in BMW v. Gore, in which the Court struck down a jury award of punitive damages as being unreasonably large in violation of substantive due process. This Note traces the history of challenges to punitive damage awards through Supreme Court cases, including BMW v. Gore. It then analyzes BMW v. Gore, particularly the Court's misguided attempt at providing a guide for punitive damage awards and the dismal implications from the Court's actions. It concludes that the better approach for the Court to have taken would have been to focus on procedural due …
A Lopez Legacy?: The Federalism Debate Renewed, But Not Resolved, Debbie Ellis
A Lopez Legacy?: The Federalism Debate Renewed, But Not Resolved, Debbie Ellis
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This casenote examines the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in United States v. Lopez, in which the Court struck down a Congressional enactment under the Commerce Clause for the first time in modern history. The note traces Commerce Clause jurisprudence back to the days of the Founding Fathers and analyzes the Lopez opinion in an historic context. It also provides an overview of how the lower federal courts have dealt with appeals based on the Lopez ruling and concludes that the federalism debate, which underlies the Court's 5-4 decision, has been renewed but not resolved.
Florida V. Bostick: Abandonment Of Reason In Fourth Amendment Reasonable Person Analysis, James F. Heuerman
Florida V. Bostick: Abandonment Of Reason In Fourth Amendment Reasonable Person Analysis, James F. Heuerman
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This note examines the United States Supreme Court's decision which addressed the constitutionality of "bus sweeps" -- random suspicionless police questioning of interstate bus travelers. The Court concluded that a reasonable bus passenger could feel free to disregard police questioning, and accordingly found that not all such encounters are entitled to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The author explores the Court's decision and contends that only by severely underestimating the inherent coercion in such encounters was the Court able to avoid the intuitive conclusion that passengers are "seized" during such questioning.
Rutan V. Republican Party Of Illinois And Patronage Employment Practices: Clarification Or Confusion?, David Herman
Rutan V. Republican Party Of Illinois And Patronage Employment Practices: Clarification Or Confusion?, David Herman
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This recent United States Supreme Court decision determined that hiring, rehiring after layoffs, promotions, and transfers based on political affiliation or support, were impermissible infringements on a public employees' first amendment rights. This note examines the conflicting cases prior to Rutan, the Rutan decision, and the implications the decision will have in the area of political patronage employment practices. The author concludes that Rutan clarifies the scope of the First Amendment protection given employees from patronage practices but fails to clarify who is to receive the protection and suggests that the traditional "confidential or policymaking" test be modified.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered V. United States: Seizing Attorney Fees-Frozen Assets Or Frozen Justice? The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel Of Choice Is Given The Cold Shoulder, Anthony G. Vella
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This note examines the United States Supreme Court decision that found confiscation of criminal defense attorney fees under RICO and the continuing criminal enterprise statutes is permissible under the sixth amendment. The Court's reasoning is presented in this note. The note analyzes the Court's decision through the eyes of the dissenters and other commentators opposed to the result. The author concludes that this decision has rendered the sixth amendment right to counsel of choice an insubstantial right and damaged the integrity of the adversary system in our courts.