Law Commons^™

Marbury And Judicial Deference: The Shadow Of Whittington V. Polk And The Maryland Judiciary Battle, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

On the 200th anniversary of Whittington and approaching the 200th anniversary of Marbury, this article revisits these two decisions and challenges legal scholars' assumptions that they were such strong precedents for judicial review.⁵ When one takes into account the broader contexts, both decisions were in fact judicial capitulations to aggressive legislatures and executives. The Maryland General Court asserted its judicial supremacy only in dicta, and the court failed to enforce judicial supremacy when it was legally justified. This article picks apart the court's reasoning step by step, using Whittington to illuminate Marbury and Marbury to illuminate Whittington. …

Spurious Interpretation Redux: Mead And The Shrinking Domain Of Statutory Ambiguity, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In skewering the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Mead Corp., Justice Scalia's rhetoric is exceptional. He derides the decision as "one of the most significant opinions ever rendered by the Court dealing with the judicial review of administrative action. Its consequences will be enormous, and almost uniformly bad." Although Justice Scalia objects to Mead's new and uncertain limits on the applicability of the Chevron doctrine, this Article will focus instead on how Mead employs a method of interpretation imputing a clear intent to Congress, and authorizes courts to discern statutory meaning without strong deference to …

The Role Of Courts In Health Care Rationing: The German Model, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Scholarly Articles

Virtually every country in the world is currently attempting to find ways to ration health care services in order to control exploding health care costs. In some countries the courts play a role in overseeing the rationing of health care. This article examines the role that the courts play in the United States in health care rationing in various contexts and programs. It then goes on to present the German social courts as an alternative model for judicial oversight of health care rationing that is both responsive to the rights of health care consumers and professionals and sensitive to the …

Direct Judicial Review Of Pto Decisions: Jurisdictional Proposals, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") decisions is complex-- perhaps more than that of any other agency. One source of complexity is that courts review its decisions both collaterally and directly.

One goal of this article is to map possible routes to judicial review and suggest strategies for avoiding jurisdictional uncertainties and delay. The core thesis of this article, however, is that parties should not need to cope with arcane review schemes. Direct PTO review can and ought to be simplified. This can be accomplished by adjusting the Federal Circuit's original and appellate jurisdiction.

Chevron Deference To The Uspto At The Federal Circuit, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Courts have long deferred to agency views of law, but they have also often refused. The Federal Circuit, too, defers on some occasions but not others. This paper examines the apparent inconsistency in its cases.

Doing Our Politics In Court: Gerrymandering, "Fair Representation" And An Exegesis Into The Judicial Role, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Judicial Activism: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

No matter how judges are selected, sooner or later some unfortunate candidate will be labeled a "judicial activist." One has to wonder: Does the term have any identifiable core meaning? Or is it just an all-purpose term of opprobrium, reflecting whatever brand of judicial behavior the speaker regards as particularly pernicious? Implicit in this question are several important issues about the role of courts in our democratic society.

I take my definition from Judge Richard Posner, who describes activist decisions as those that expand judicial power over other branches of the national government or over state governments. Unlike other uses …

Toward A Jurisprudence Of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Michael B. Abramowicz

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In his book, The Cost-Benefit State, democratic theorist Cass Sunstein urges regulatory agencies to make decisions based on numerical assessments of regulatory consequences, factoring in variables ranging from effects on consumer prices to lives saved. In this Review, I seek to illustrate Sunstein's conception of cost-benefit analysis and critique this conception by suggesting that cost-benefit analysis could serve a more important role than Sunstein would allow. I also argue for a more active judicial role in scrutinizing agency actions than Sunstein would recommend, though not necessarily a less deferential one. In Part I of this review, I outline Sunstein's defense …

The New Deal ‘Constitutional Revolution’ As An Historical Problem, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Review Of Rulemaking, Participation And The Limits Of Public Law In The Usa And Europe By Theodora Th. Ziamou And Review Of Governing By Numbers: Delegated Legislation And Everyday Policy-Making, By Edward C. Page, Francesca Bignami

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article reviews two books: Rulemaking, Participation and the Limits of Public Law in the USA and Europe by Theodora Th. Ziamou and Governing by Numbers by Edward C. Page. In Rulemaking, Ziamou compares the law of rulemaking in the United States, Germany, Greece, and England. Ziamou covers the distinction between administrative rules and other administrative acts, the constitutional law of rulemaking, rulemaking procedure, the ability of private organizations to adopt rules that bind themselves and third parties, and judicial review. Readers are left with a better understanding of American and European rulemaking but may not be convinced that Europe …

A Goldilocks Account Of Judicial Review?, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

According to Professor Christopher Eisgruber, judicial review of the sort embedded in United States constitutional practice is a practical mechanism for implementing the Constitution's commitment to self-government. "The justices ... make a distinctive contribution to representative democracy" because they are "better positioned [than elected officials] to represent the people's convictions about what is right." Judges can articulate "a conception of justice with which Americans in general [can] plausibly identify themselves. "

I will focus here on two themes in Professor Eisgruber's argument. The first theme can be found in many works of constitutional theory - the construction of a strong …

The Limits Of Being "Present At The Creation", Roy A. Schotland

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Having been invited late to this Symposium and having read fewer than all essays, I offer, (with deep appreciation for the invitation), only mini-comments on three of the many valuable contributions: the essays by Professors Persily, Hasen, and Gerken. But first, at risk of pedantry, may I suggest changing the Symposium's title to something like "Baker and its Progeny .... (or "Baker, doughnuts, and holes"?). Most of the treatment seems to be about the progeny, as surely it should be. While of course everyone knows how far Baker went, what Reynolds did, and what was not done until after Reynolds, …

Are Judges Motivated To Create "Good" Securities Fraud Doctrine?, Donald C. Langevoort

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

‘How Do Judges Maximize? (The Same Way Everybody Else Does – Boundedly): Rules of Thumb in Securities Fraud Opinions’, by Stephen M. Bainbridge and G. Mitu Gulati, confronts the reader with a theory about judicial behavior in the face of complex, "unexciting" cases such as those involving securities fraud. The story is simple: few judges find any opportunity for personal satisfaction or enhanced reputation here, so they simply try to minimize cognitive effort, off-loading much of the work that has to be done to their clerks. The evidence that Bainbridge and Gulati offer is the creation of some ten or …

Environmental Law And The Supreme Court: Three Years Later, Richard J. Lazarus

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In my Garrison Lecture three years ago, I surveyed the environmental law decisions of the Supreme Court between 1970 and 1999. I commented on which Justices had been more or less influential in shaping the Court's decisions and, even more provocatively (if not foolishly), sought to "score" the individual Justices on their responsiveness to environmental protection concerns based on their votes cast in a subset of those cases. The broader thesis of the lecture, however, was that there is something distinctively "environmental" about environmental law and that the Court's increasing inability to appreciate that dimension was leading to more poorly-reasoned …

Law And Prudence In The Law Of Justiciability: The Transformation And Disappearance Of The Political Question Doctrine, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Essay develops the foregoing argument by examining, in Section I, the transformation of the political question doctrine from Baker v. Carr through Walter Nixon v. United States. Section II charts a similar, perhaps even more dramatic transformation of the law of standing. Section I then examines Bush v. Gore, explaining how older doctrines of standing and political questions might have been thought relevant there. It argues as well that the very fact that those doctrines went unmentioned by the Court shows why we must take a historically grounded view of justiciability doctrines. Section IV sketches the historical settings in …

Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

Ambiguity serves a legislative purpose. When legislators perceive a need to compromise they can, among other strategies, "obscur[e] the particular meaning of a statute, allowing different legislators to read the obscured provisions the way they wish." Legislative ambiguity reaches its peak when a statute is so elegantly crafted that it credibly supports multiple inconsistent interpretations by legislators and judges. Legislators with opposing views can then claim that they have prevailed in the legislative arena, and, as long as courts continue to issue conflicting interpretations, these competing claims of legislative victory remain credible. Formal legal doctrine, in contrast, frames legislative ambiguity …

Lincoln, Marshall And The Judicial Role, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Abraham Lincoln understood judicial activism. For Lincoln, the paradigm of the unrestrained Supreme Court was the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Lincoln saw the "illegitimacy" of Dred Scott not in that the Supreme Court had overturned an act of Congress. It was, rather, that the Supreme Court, in the guise of making a legal decision, instead made a political decision. Even worse, it was a political decision that sought to redefine the polity in fundamental, constitutional terms. Lincoln's position echoed the most eloquent articulation of judicial review ever made by the Court: in Marbury vs. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall …