Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (12)
- Courts (9)
- Judges (8)
- Law and Politics (7)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (4)
-
- Election Law (3)
- National Security Law (3)
- President/Executive Department (3)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Construction Law (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- History (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Military, War, and Peace (1)
- Political History (1)
- Second Amendment (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 29 of 29
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dysfunction, Deference, And Judicial Review, Barry Friedman, Margaret H. Lemos
Dysfunction, Deference, And Judicial Review, Barry Friedman, Margaret H. Lemos
Faculty Scholarship
This symposium poses a provocative question: Should judges exercising the power of judicial review defer to the political branches as a means of giving voice to the “will of the people”? The inquiry assumes a connection between majority will and the outputs of the political branches—a connection we argue is frayed, at best, in the current political context.
In the first part of this Essay, we highlight how well-known aspects of our political system—ranging from representational distortions in federal and state governments to the relationship between partisan polarization and the behavior of elected officials—call into question whether political outcomes reliably …
Race And Guns, Courts And Democracy, Joseph Blocher, Reva B. Siegel
Race And Guns, Courts And Democracy, Joseph Blocher, Reva B. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
Is racism in gun regulation reason to look to the Supreme Court to expand Second Amendment rights? While discussion of race and guns recurs across the briefs in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, it is especially prominent in the brief of legal aid attorneys and public defenders who employed their Second Amendment arguments to showcase stories of racial bias in the enforcement of New York’s licensing and gun possession laws. Because this Second Amendment claim came from a coalition on the left, it was widely celebrated by gun rights advocates.
In this Essay we address issues …
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
Faculty Scholarship
When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …
The Paradoxical Impact Of Scalia's Campaign Against Legislative History, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Kristen M. Renberg
The Paradoxical Impact Of Scalia's Campaign Against Legislative History, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Kristen M. Renberg
Faculty Scholarship
Beginning in 1985, Judge and then Justice Antonin Scalia advocated forcefully against the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia’s position, in line with his textualism, was that legislative history was irrelevant and judges should avoid invoking it. Reactions to his attacks among Justices and prominent circuit judges had an ideological quality, with greater support from ideological conservatives. In this Article, we consider the role that political party and timing of judicial nomination played in circuit judges’ use of legislative history. Specifically, we hypothesize that Republican circuit judges were more likely to respond to the attacks on legislative …
The Well-Intentioned Purpose But Weak Epistemological Foundation Of Originalism, George C. Christie
The Well-Intentioned Purpose But Weak Epistemological Foundation Of Originalism, George C. Christie
Faculty Scholarship
The attraction of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is understandable. It is maintained that only that method can provide the judicial objectivity and certainty that constitutional adjudication requires. They claim that the traditional common-law evolutionary approach leads Supreme Court Justices to succumb to the temptation to fill in gaps in constitutional law and thereby ignore that major expansions in constitutional meaning and should be made in the way the Founders envisioned, namely by amendment of the Constitution. However difficult or impractical that process may be, it is the only way to avoid the politicization of the Court. Whether that …
Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Judicial Intervention As Judicial Restraint, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis E. Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
This paper examines the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford. It advances two claims. First, it provides a comprehensive account of the Court's skepticism of judicial supervision of democratic politics, an account that we call the narrative of nonintervention. It situates Gill within that account and argues that the Court's reluctance to intervene is a function of the Court's institutional calculus that it ought to protect its legitimacy and institutional capital when it engages in what look like political fights. Second, the paper provides an instrumentalist account for judicial intervention. It argues that the Court should intervene to prevent partisan …
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses
From the criminal trial of Aaron Burr on charges of treason to modern-day litigation involving the CIA, the state secrets privilege presents a thorny issue for federal judges. Judge Trenga examines the legal issues at the heart of this privilege—separation of powers, non-justiciability, evidentiary privilege, national security interests, and military secrets—and the two primary doctrinal tracks judges invoke. Then, based on interviews with thirty-one federal judges, Judge Trenga offers insights into how judges think about applying the state secrets privilege to sensitive material.
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The National Security State: The End Of Separation Of Powers, Michael E. Tigar
The National Security State: The End Of Separation Of Powers, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Plenary Power Preemption, Kerry Abrams
Public Funding Of Judicial Campaigns: The North Carolina Experience And The Activism Of The Supreme Court, Paul D. Carrington
Public Funding Of Judicial Campaigns: The North Carolina Experience And The Activism Of The Supreme Court, Paul D. Carrington
Faculty Scholarship
In recent years, the problem of selecting judges to sit on the highest state courts has become a national crisis. North Carolina remains among the states whose constitutions require competitive elections of all its judges. Presently, all candidates for its judicial offices must first compete for election in a non-partisan primary, a system motivated by the desire to maximize the power of the state’s citizen-voters to choose their judges and hold them accountable for their fidelity to the law. Some observers have continued to celebrate such judicial elections as an honorable democratic empowerment, while others have not. The disagreement has …
All Rise - Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
All Rise - Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Interring The Rhetoric Of Judicial Activism, Neil S. Siegel
Interring The Rhetoric Of Judicial Activism, Neil S. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
For decades, leaders of the Republican Party have decried “judicial activism” and championed “judicial restraint.” For much of that time, Republican politicians have equated judicial restraint with a commitment to judicial deference, asserting that “activist” judges disrespect the will of popular majorities. More recently, as the Republican Party has solidified its control of the federal courts and made its own claims on the Constitution, Republican politicians have tended to define judicial activism in potentially conflicting ways, mixing deference frames with claims about the autonomy of law from mere politics or personal beliefs.
In this Article, I examine these two ways …
“Political Questions”: An Invasive Species Infecting The Courts, Philip Weinberg
“Political Questions”: An Invasive Species Infecting The Courts, Philip Weinberg
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum
No abstract provided.
A System Of Wholesale Denial Of Rights, Michael E. Tigar
A System Of Wholesale Denial Of Rights, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria, Jesse H. Choper
The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria, Jesse H. Choper
Duke Law Journal
Whether there should be a political question doctrine and, if so, how it should be implemented continue to be contentious and controversial issues, both within and outside the Court. This Article urges that the Justices should reformulate the detailed definition that they have utilized (at least formally) since 1962, and adopt four criteria to be applied in future cases. The least disputed-textual commitment-is the initial factor listed in Baker v. Carr. The other three are based on functional considerations rather than constitutional language or original understanding. The first of these-structural issues: federalism and separation of powers-has been advanced and developed …
Marshall’S Questions, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, H. Jefferson Powell
Marshall’S Questions, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Rehnquist Court & Justice: An Oxymoron?, Erwin Chemerinsky
The Rehnquist Court & Justice: An Oxymoron?, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Judicial Restraint In The Administrative State: Beyond The Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Matthew D. Adler
Judicial Restraint In The Administrative State: Beyond The Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Matthew D. Adler
Faculty Scholarship
Arguments for judicial restraint point to some kind of judicial deficit (such as a democratic or an epistemic deficit) as grounds for limiting judicial review. ("Judicial review" is used in this Article to mean, essentially, the judicial invalidation of statutes, rules, orders and actions in virtue of the Bill of Rights, or similar unwritten criteria.). The most influential argument for judicial restraint has been the Countermajoritarian Difficulty. This is a legislature-centered argument: one that points to features of *legislatures*, as grounds for courts to refrain from invalidating *statutes*. This Article seeks to recast scholarly debate about judicial restraint, and to …
Rediscovering Nonjusticiability: Judicial Review Of Impeachments After Nixon, Michael J. Gerhardt
Rediscovering Nonjusticiability: Judicial Review Of Impeachments After Nixon, Michael J. Gerhardt
Duke Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Confirming The Constitution: The Role Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Stephen J. Wermiel
Confirming The Constitution: The Role Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Stephen J. Wermiel
Law and Contemporary Problems
The confirmation process for Supreme Court justices is examined as a form of indirect constitutional interpretation by the Senate. Recent confirmation struggles are used as examples.
The Lawmaking Congress, Roger H. Davidson
The Lawmaking Congress, Roger H. Davidson
Law and Contemporary Problems
General guidelines for understanding how the task of framing and reviewing constitutional issues is approached by senators and representatives in Congress are presented.
Disagreement And Interpretation, Robert F. Nagel
Disagreement And Interpretation, Robert F. Nagel
Law and Contemporary Problems
The question of what weight--if any--courts should give to elected government resistance to court decisions is examined. A principle is sought that explains why courts should not consider local resistance when deliberating on constitutional questions.
Foreword, Neal Devins
Judicial Responses To The Recent Enforcement Activities Of The Federal Banking Regulators, Lawrence G. Baxter
Judicial Responses To The Recent Enforcement Activities Of The Federal Banking Regulators, Lawrence G. Baxter
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar
What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Wrong Questions Get Wrong Answers: An Analysis Of Professor Carter’S Approach To Judicial Review, Erwin Chemerinsky
Wrong Questions Get Wrong Answers: An Analysis Of Professor Carter’S Approach To Judicial Review, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Price Of Asking The Wrong Question: An Essay On Constitutional Scholarship And Judicial Review, Erwin Chemerinsky
The Price Of Asking The Wrong Question: An Essay On Constitutional Scholarship And Judicial Review, Erwin Chemerinsky
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Judicial Power, The “Political Question Doctrine,” And Foreign Relations, Michael E. Tigar
Judicial Power, The “Political Question Doctrine,” And Foreign Relations, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.