Law Commons^™

Executive Privilege: The Clinton Administration In The Courts, Neil Kinkopf

Neil J. Kinkopf

Exploring the role of the judicial branch of the federal government in Clinton-era executive privilege claims, Neil Kinkopf suggests that courts have misunderstood executive privilege. Professor Kinkopf points out that federal courts have given different treatment to executive privilege claims asserted in judicial and congressional arenas, protecting the Judiciary from encroachment by the executive branch, while avoiding becoming involved in controversies among the political branches. He argues that the judicial confusion about executive privilege stems from the fact that courts have interpreted cases such as Clinton v. Jones to be about the separation of powers between the executive and judicial …

How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases— – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Section 2: Congress & The Obama White House, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Road Most Travel: Is The Executive’S Growing Preeminence Making America More Like The Authoritarian Regimes It Fights So Hard Against?, Ryan T. Williams

Ryan T. Williams

Standing Outside Article Iii, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has insisted that standing doctrine is a “bedrock” requirement only of Article III. Accordingly, both jurists and scholars have assumed that the standing of the executive branch and the legislature, like that of other parties, depends solely on Article III. But I argue that these commentators have overlooked a basic constitutional principle: federal institutions must have affirmative authority for their actions, including the power to bring suit or appeal in federal court. Article III defines the federal “judicial Power” and does not purport to confer any authority on the executive branch or the legislature. Executive and …

Blackstone's Curse: The Fall Of The Criminal, Civil, And Grand Juries And The Rise Of The Executive, The Legislature, The Judiciary, And The States, Suja A. Thomas

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Zone Of Presidential Power: Analyzing The Debt-Ceiling Standoff Through The Prism Of Youngstown Steel, Chad Deveaux

Chad DeVeaux

In this Article, I use the Youngstown Steel Seizure Case to assess the reoccurring debt-ceiling standoffs between Congress and the White House. If the Treasury reaches the debt limit and Congress fails to act, the president will be forced to choose between three options: (1) cancel programs, (2) borrow funds in excess of the debt limit, or (3) raise taxes. Each of these options violates a direct statutory command. In Youngstown, Justice Jackson asserted that “[p]residential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.” He offered his famous three-zone template which evaluates …

Seek Justice, Not Just Deportation: How To Improve Prosecutorial Discretion In Immigration Law, Erin B. Corcoran

Law Faculty Scholarship

Bipartisan politics has prevented meaningful reform to a system in dire need of solutions: Immigration. Meanwhile there are eleven million noncitizens with no valid immigration status who currently reside in the United States and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have the necessary resources to effect their removal. DHS does have the authority through prosecutorial discretion to prioritize these cases and provide relief to individuals with compelling circumstances that warrant humanitarian consideration; nonetheless, DHS’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion is underutilized, inconsistently applied and lacks transparency. This Article suggests a remedy – that the immigration prosecutor’s role should redefined …

Extraterritoriality And Comparative Institutional Analysis: A Response To Professor Meyer, Zachary D. Clopton, P. Bartholomew Quintans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to narrow the reach of U.S. securities law in Morrison v. National Australia Bank and international-law tort claims in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. By their terms, these decisions are limited to the interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes and claims under the Alien Tort Statute. A potential unintended consequence of these decisions, therefore, is that future plaintiffs will turn to common-law causes of action derived from state and foreign law, potentially filing such suits in state courts. These causes of action may include “human rights claims …

Identifying Congressional Overrides Should Not Be This Hard, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This paper is an invited response to Professor William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Mr. Matthew R. Christiansen’s recently-published study (92 Texas L. Rev. 1317 (2014)) identifying and analyzing Congressional overrides of Supreme Court statutory interpretation decisions since 1967. Christiansen and Eskridge provide a new taxonomy for overrides that distinguishes between "restorative" overrides, which denounce a judicial interpretation as misrepresenting prior Congressional intent, and overrides that simply update or clarify policy. Although political science and legal scholarship has focused on the interbranch struggle implicit in restorative overrides, Christiansen and Eskridge classify only about 20% of the overrides in their total dataset …

Retroactivity And Prospectivity Of Judgments In American Law, Richard Kay

Richard Kay

In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect—that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that such application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This essay, a substantially abridged version of the United States Report on the subject, submitted at the Nineteenth International Congress of Comparative Law, summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing exclusively or …

Burden Of Decision: Judging Presidential Disability Under The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Daniel J.T. Schuker

Daniel Schuker

This Article offers a new approach to understanding, classifying, and assessing cases of presidential disability. In constitutional terms, “presidential disability” refers to any condition that renders the President of the United States “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office. Remarkably, the existing legal infrastructure under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides no guidance for determining when a President has become constitutionally disabled. Nor does it explain when the President (under Section 3) should initiate the succession process, and when the Vice President and other senior officials (under Section 4) should take the lead instead. During crises of presidential disability, …

The American Dream: Daca, Dreamers, And Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Heather Fathali

Seattle University Law Review

On June 15, 2012, President Obama made an announcement that changed the lives of millions. Effective immediately, the Obama administration would implement a new program—what would come to be known as Deferred Action for Child-hood Arrivals (DACA)—offering eligible undocumented young people both a two-year respite from the haunting possibility of deportation as well as the eligibility to apply for employment authorization. While millions were elated by the President’s announcement, he also faced harsh criticism. Many claimed that his action exceeded federal statutory limits, exceeded his Executive powers, and usurped congressional authority. Still others, anxious to see comprehensive immigration reform implemented, …

Congress's Power To Block Enforcement Of Federal Court Orders, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

This Article considers the constitutionality and propriety of recent appropriations riders passed by the House of Representatives in response to controversial federal court rulings. The riders prohibit the use of any federal funds for the enforcement of court orders issued in specified cases. These enforcement-blocking provisions raise significant separation-of-powers concerns as between Congress and both coordinate branches of the federal government. The Article begins by looking at the controversial First Amendment rulings that triggered the enforcement-blocking riders, and the Congressional debates over the proper way to respond to the rulings. The riders are not merely symbolic protests, but could have …

The Scope Of Congress's Thirteenth Amendment Enforcement Power After City Of Boerne V. Flores, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment grants Congress power “to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Supreme Court held that Section Two permits Congress to define the “badges and incidents of slavery” and pass “all laws necessary and proper” for their abolition. Congress has passed a number of civil rights laws under this understanding of its Section Two power. Several commentators have urged Congress to expansively define the “badges and incidents of slavery” and use Section Two to address everything from racial profiling to discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual …

Where The Judiciary Prosecutes In Front Of Itself: Missouri's Unconstitutional Juvenile Court Structure, Josh Gupta-Kagan

Faculty Publications

This article is the first scholarly examination of Missouri’s unusual juvenile court structure: Missouri law charges a “juvenile officer” with exclusive authority to determine which child welfare or delinquency cases to file and what to charge in each case. The juvenile officer is hired and supervised by juvenile court judges, and the juvenile officer litigates cases in front of those same judges. This structure differs from the typical procedures in juvenile courts around the United States, which have generally adapted their juvenile courts to reflect the norm of executive branch agencies or attorneys (not court staff) filing cases to intervene …

Section 5: First Amendment & Separation Of Powers, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Normative Canons In The Review Of Administrative Policymaking, Kenneth A. Bamberger

Kenneth A. Bamberger

Who should ensure that statutes are interpreted to reflect background norms left unaddressed by Congress-- norms like respect for the rights of regulated parties, protection of the interests of states and Native American tribes, avoidance of government bias, and the separation of powers? On the one hand, courts have traditionally sought to protect these constitutionally inspired values by applying "normative" canons of construction. On the other hand, after the Supreme Court's Chevron decision, authority to interpret unclear regulatory statutes generally belongs not to judges, but to agencies. This question has polarized courts and commentators. A majority, including the Supreme Court, …

Provisional Precedent: Protecting Flexibility In Administrative Policymaking, Kenneth A. Bamberger

Kenneth A. Bamberger

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Independence In Public Law, Brian C. Murchison

Brian C. Murchison

None available.

The Constitution Of Belarus: A Good First Step Towards The Rule Of Law, Gary M. Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

No abstract provided.

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul R. Gugliuzza

William & Mary Law Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court's power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court's federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel

Articles

When the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) brought the first habeas cases challenging the Executive’s right to detain prisoners in a law free zone at Guantanamo in 2002, almost no legal commentator gave the plaintiffs much chance of succeeding. Yet, two years later in 2004, after losing in both the District Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush handed CCR a resounding victory. Four years later, the Supreme Court again ruled in CCR’s favor in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas and declaring the Congressional …

Montesquieu's Theory Of Government And The Framing Of The American Constitution , Matthew P. Bergman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Antonin Scalia

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Jeffrey S. Boyd

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Alvarez-Machain: Kidnapping In The "War On Drugs" - A Matter Of Executive Discretion Or Lawlessness?, Michael G. Mckinnon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.