Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Civil Rights and Discrimination
Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf
Rights And Rules: An Overview, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Prior to recent decades, the United States Supreme Court often invoked the political question doctrine to avoid deciding controversial questions of individual rights. By the 1970s and 1980s, standing limits traced to Article III’s case-or-controversy language had replaced the political question doctrine as the favored justiciability device. Although both political question and standing doctrines remain tools in the Court’s arsenal of threshold decision making,3 in the last decade the Court has turned with increasing frequency to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges to perform the gatekeeping function. However, although there is a considerable body of scholarship concerning the conventional …
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Supreme Court's 1998-1999 Term: Fourth Amendment Decisions, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment On Meese, Robert F. Nagel
Indirect Constitutional Discourse: A Comment On Meese, Robert F. Nagel
Publications
No abstract provided.
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …