Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns
What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns
Faculty Working Papers
The number of trials continues to decline andfederal civil trials have almost completely disappeared. This essay attempts to address the significance of this loss, to answer the obvious question, "So what?" It argues against taking a resigned or complacent attitude toward an important problem for our public culture. It presents a short description of the trial's internal structure, recounts different sorts of explanations, and offers an inventory of the kinds of wounds this development would inflict.
The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander
The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander
Faculty Working Papers
In Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to sue federal government officials for a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing on interviews with some of the participants, including Webster Bivens himself and one of the agents who conducted the search, this chapter in the forthcoming book Federal Courts' Stories describes the events that led to the litigation and the complex array of factors that informed the Court's approach to the case. After placing the Bivens decision in context, the chapter evaluates the competing narratives that have grown …
Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis
Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis
Faculty Working Papers
The Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics provides an uncertain framework for the enforcement of constitutional rights against the federal government. Rather than recognizing a federal common law right of action for use in every case, the Court views itself as devising actions on a case-by-case basis in light of a range of factors. Critics on all sides question the Court's approach, doubting either its power to fashion federal common law or the tendency of its case-by-case analysis to create gaps in constitutional enforcement. Particularly when compared with actions under …