Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Revitalizing The Presumption Against Preemption To Prevent Regulatory Gaps: A Case Study Of Judicial Tolerance Of Illegal Railroad Waste Transfer Stations, Carter H. Strickland Jr. Mar 2007

Revitalizing The Presumption Against Preemption To Prevent Regulatory Gaps: A Case Study Of Judicial Tolerance Of Illegal Railroad Waste Transfer Stations, Carter H. Strickland Jr.

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

This article addresses the problem of regulatory gaps that are created through imprecise preemption rulings. It begins with a detailed case study of how railroads were able to enter the highly regulated solid waste industry, to claim that all state oversight is preempted by a federal statute intended to deregulate railroad economics, and to obtain the economic benefits of operating in a regulatory gap. The net result of current preemption doctrine in those cases has been to strip citizens of the power to ensure that waste transfer stations are safe, and this fundamental injustice serves as a backdrop to analyzing ...


Constitutional Tipping Points: Civil Rights, Social Change, And Fact-Based Adjudication, Suzanne B. Goldberg Mar 2006

Constitutional Tipping Points: Civil Rights, Social Change, And Fact-Based Adjudication, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Judicial opinions typically rely on facts about a social group to justify or reject limitations on group members' rights, especially when traditional views about the status or capacity of group members are in contest. Yet the fact based approach to decision making obscures the normative judgments that actually determine whether restrictions on individual rights are reasonable. This article offers an account of how and why courts intervene in social conflicts by focusing on facts rather than declaring norms. In part, it argues that this approach preserves judicial flexibility to retain traditional justifications for restricting group members' rights in some settings ...


Constitutional Adjudication, Civil Rights, And Social Change, Suzanne B. Goldberg Sep 2005

Constitutional Adjudication, Civil Rights, And Social Change, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Judicial opinions typically rely on “facts” about a social group to justify or reject limitations on group members’ rights, especially when traditional views about the status or capacity of group members are in contest. Yet the fact-based approach to decision-making obscures the normative judgments that actually determine whether restrictions on individual rights are reasonable. This article offers an account of how and why courts intervene in social conflicts by focusing on facts rather than declaring norms. In part, it argues that this approach preserves judicial power to retain traditional justifications for restricting group members’ rights in some settings but not ...


Legislatively Revising Kelo V. City Of New London: Eminent Domain, Federalism, And Congressional Powers, Bernard W. Bell Aug 2005

Legislatively Revising Kelo V. City Of New London: Eminent Domain, Federalism, And Congressional Powers, Bernard W. Bell

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

This paper explores Congress’ power to limit state and local authorities’ use of eminent domain to further economic revitalization. More particularly, it examines whether Congress can constrain the discretion to invoke eminent domain which state and local officials appear entitled to under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005). The question involves and exploration and assessment of the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence regarding federalism and judicial supremacy.

In providing that private property may not be taken for “public use” without just compensation, the Fifth Amendment implicitly ...


The Relation Between Autonomy-Based Rights And Profoundly Disabled Persons, Norman L. Cantor Jun 2004

The Relation Between Autonomy-Based Rights And Profoundly Disabled Persons, Norman L. Cantor

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

“The Relation Between Autonomy-based Rights and Profoundly Mentally Disabled Persons” Competent persons have fundamental rights to decide about abortion, methods of contraception, and rejection of life-sustaining medical treatment. Profoundly disabled persons are so cognitively impaired that they cannot make their own serious medical decisions. Yet some courts suggest that the mentally impaired are entitled to “the same right” to choice regarding critical medical decisions as competent persons. This article discusses the puzzling question of how to relate autonomy-based rights to never-competent persons. It argues that while profoundly disabled persons cannot be entitled to make their own medical decisions, they have ...


Morals-Based Justifications For Lawmaking: Before And After Lawrence V. Texas, Suzanne B. Goldberg May 2004

Morals-Based Justifications For Lawmaking: Before And After Lawrence V. Texas, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

Morals-Based Justifications for Lawmaking: Before and After Lawrence v. Texas looks in depth at the dissonance between the Supreme Court’s rhetorical support for morals-based lawmaking and the Court’s jurisprudence. In taking this approach, the article responds to a central post-Lawrence question regarding the sufficiency of a government’s moral agenda as a justification for restricting individual rights. It turns out, on close review of the cases going back to the mid-1800s, that the Court has almost never relied explicitly on a morals rationale to sustain an allegedly rights-infringing government action.

The article develops several explanations for this avoidance ...


Equality Without Tiers, Suzanne Goldberg Apr 2004

Equality Without Tiers, Suzanne Goldberg

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

No abstract provided.


Wiretapping's Fruits, The First Amendment, And The Paradigms Of Privacy, Bernard W. Bell Mar 2004

Wiretapping's Fruits, The First Amendment, And The Paradigms Of Privacy, Bernard W. Bell

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

No abstract provided.


Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman Dec 2003

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the ...