Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Book reviews (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Empirical research (2)
- Minimalism (2)
-
- Political questions and judicial power (2)
- Academic law (1)
- Barnett (Randy) (1)
- Bias (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Case law (1)
- Children (1)
- City of Trenton v. New Jersey (1)
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Conservatism (1)
- Constitutional theory (1)
- Constitutionalism (1)
- Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1)
- Executive power (1)
- Federal jurisdiction (1)
- Free Exercise Clause (1)
- Government liability (1)
- Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1)
- Hybrid rights (1)
- Ideology (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Interstate Commerce Clause (1)
- Jim Crow (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial decisions (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Signatures Of Ideology: The Case Of The Supreme Court's Criminal Docket, Ward Farnsworth
Signatures Of Ideology: The Case Of The Supreme Court's Criminal Docket, Ward Farnsworth
Michigan Law Review
Everyone suspects that Supreme Court justices' own views of policy play a part in their decisions, but the size and nature of the part is a matter of vague impression and frequent dispute. Do their preferences exert some pressure at the margin or are they better viewed as the mainsprings of decision? The latter claim, identified with legal realism, has been lent some support by political scientists who point out that some justices regularly vote for or against certain kinds of claims (for example, under the Fourth Amendment), or that votes in some areas are broadly predictable according to a …
Testing Minimalism: A Reply, Cass R. Sunstein
Testing Minimalism: A Reply, Cass R. Sunstein
Michigan Law Review
Some judges are less ambitious than others; they have minimalist tendencies. Minimalists are unambitious along two dimensions. First, they seek to rule narrowly rather than broadly. In a single case, they do not wish to resolve other, related problems that might have relevant differences. They are willing to live with the costs and burdens of uncertainty, which they tend to prefer to the risks of premature resolution of difficult issues. Second, minimalists seek to rule shallowly rather than deeply, in the sense that they favor arguments that do not take a stand on the foundational debates in law and politics. …
The Free Exercise Of Religion And Public Schools: The Implications Of Hybrid Rights On The Religious Upbringing Of Children, Michael E. Lechliter
The Free Exercise Of Religion And Public Schools: The Implications Of Hybrid Rights On The Religious Upbringing Of Children, Michael E. Lechliter
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that parents have a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that courts interpreting Smith have systematically misunderstood and misapplied the Supreme Court's confusing hybrid rights language. Part I explains how Yoder and Smith create and preserve parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The essential point is that the free exercise right and the parental right are not examined independently and simply added together, but instead are incorporated together to provide a specific bite to the free exercise claim. Part I also examines the lower …
A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel
A Theory In Search Of A Court, And Itself: Judicial Minimalism At The Supreme Court Bar, Neil S. Siegel
Michigan Law Review
According to the prevailing wisdom in academic public law, constitutional theory is a field that seeks to articulate and evaluate abstract accounts of the nature of the United States Constitution. Theorists offer those accounts as guides to subsequent judicial construction of constitutional provisions. As typically conceived, therefore, constitutional theory tends to proceed analytically from the general to the particular; its animating idea is that correct decisions in constitutional cases presuppose theoretical commitments to the methodological principles that should guide constitutional interpretation and the substantive values such interpretation should advance. In its enthusiasm for abstraction, constitutional theory has, at times, generated …
Swancc'S Clear Statement: A Delimitation Of Congress's Commerce Clause Authority To Regulate Water Pollution, Matthew B. Baumgartner
Swancc'S Clear Statement: A Delimitation Of Congress's Commerce Clause Authority To Regulate Water Pollution, Matthew B. Baumgartner
Michigan Law Review
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of federal water pollution law is wetland regulation. Wetlands are typically marshy or swampy areas with hydrologic soils and vegetation. Their ecological value is widely recognized, but wetlands often stand in the way of lucrative commercial development projects. Thus, the battle over the validity of federal wetland regulation is a classic fight between environmentalists and industry. The wetlands controversy is also paradigmatic of the perpetual struggle to define the constitutional limits to federal regulation. The country's main water pollution control law, the Clean Water Act (CWA), purports to regulate all "navigable waters," which it defines …
Subdivisions, Standing And The Supremacy Clause: Can A Political Subdivision Sue Its Parent State Under Federal Law, Brian P. Keenan
Subdivisions, Standing And The Supremacy Clause: Can A Political Subdivision Sue Its Parent State Under Federal Law, Brian P. Keenan
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that political subdivisions should be able to seek protection from their parent states under the Supremacy Clause when alleging a conflict between state law and any federal law, be it the Constitution, treaty, or a federal statute. Part I argues that the precedential cases like Hunter and Trenton were limited to the constitutional provisions in question and therefore did not bar all suits under the Supremacy Clause. Part II shows that the issue is one of constitutional protection of political subdivisions, rather than Article III standing, which had a completely different meaning when Hunter and Trenton were …
The Originalist And Normative Case Against Judicial Activism: A Reply To Professor Randy Barnett, Steven G. Calabresi
The Originalist And Normative Case Against Judicial Activism: A Reply To Professor Randy Barnett, Steven G. Calabresi
Michigan Law Review
In Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, Professor Randy E. Barnett lays out a bold defense of the theory of originalism in constitutional interpretation. Professor Barnett's book is perhaps the most important book about originalism since Robert H. Bork's The Tempting of America. Barnett presents a normative case as to why contemporary Americans should agree to be governed by the original meaning of the Constitution, and, like most sophisticated originalists, he nicely distinguishes between original meaning and original intent. Barnett correctly notes that what really matters in constitutional interpretation is not what the Framers intended that provision …
Against Interpretive Supremacy, Saikrishna Prakash, John Yoo
Against Interpretive Supremacy, Saikrishna Prakash, John Yoo
Michigan Law Review
Many constitutional scholars are obsessed with judicial review and the many questions surrounding it. One perennial favorite is whether the Constitution even authorizes judicial review. Another is whether the other branches of the federal government must obey the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and what, if anything, the other branches must do to execute the judiciary's judgments. Marbury v. Madison has been a full-employment program for many constitutional law scholars, including ourselves. Larry Kramer, the new Dean of Stanford Law School, shares this passion. He has devoted roughly the last decade of his career, with two lengthy law review …
The Unfulfilled Promise Of The Constitution In Executive Hands, Cornelia T.L. Pillard
The Unfulfilled Promise Of The Constitution In Executive Hands, Cornelia T.L. Pillard
Michigan Law Review
Many leading constitutional scholars now argue for greater reliance on the political branches to supplement or even supplant judicial enforcement of the Constitution. Responding to our national preoccupation with the judiciary as the mechanism of constitutional enforcement, these scholars stress that the executive and legislature, too, bear responsibility to think about the Constitution for themselves and to take steps to fulfill the Constitution's promise. Joining a debate that goes back at least as far as Marbury v. Madison, current scholars seek to reawaken the political branches to their constitutional potential, and urge the Supreme Court to leave the other …
Does The Supreme Court Matter? Civil Rights And The Inherent Politicization Of Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Lassiter
Does The Supreme Court Matter? Civil Rights And The Inherent Politicization Of Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Lassiter
Michigan Law Review
More than a decade ago, in a colloquium sponsored by the Virginia Law Review, scholars of the civil rights movement launched a fierce assault on Michael J. Klarman's interpretation of the significance of the Supreme Court's famous school desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Klarman's "backlash thesis," initially set forth in a series of law review and history journal articles and now serving as the centerpiece of his new book, revolves around two central claims. First, he argues that the advancements toward racial equality generally attributed to Brown were instead the inevitable products of long-term political, …