Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Supreme Court of the United States (4)
- Judges (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
-
- First Amendment (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Rule of Law (2)
- Agency (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Disaster Law (1)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Food and Drug Law (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Courts
The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas
The Jury Trial Reinvented, Christopher Robertson, Michael Shammas
Faculty Scholarship
The Framers of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution recognized that jury trials were essential for maintaining democratic legitimacy and avoiding epistemic crises. As an institution, the jury trial is purpose-built to engage citizens in the process of deliberative, participatory democracy with ground rules. The jury trial provides a carefully constructed setting aimed at sorting truth from falsehood.
Despite its value, the jury trial has been under assault for decades. Concededly, jury trials can sometimes be inefficient, unreliable, unpredictable, and impractical. The COVID–19 pandemic rendered most physical jury trials unworkable but spurred some courts to begin …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner
The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Most academic studies of standing have focused on restrictions on federal court jurisdiction drawn from Article III of U.S. Constitution and related doctrinal schemes developed by state courts. These rules are constructed atop a few words of the Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under various circumstances. The Supreme Court has interpreted these words to require federal courts to assess whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and redressable by a favorable ruling before proceeding to the merits of …
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro
William & Mary Law Review
Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Comparative Judicialism, Popular Sovereignty, And The Rule Of Law: The Us And Uk Supreme Courts, Lissa Griffin, Thomas Kidney
Comparative Judicialism, Popular Sovereignty, And The Rule Of Law: The Us And Uk Supreme Courts, Lissa Griffin, Thomas Kidney
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
What does the future hold for the US and UK Supreme Courts? Both courts face an uncertain future in which their roles in their constitutional systems will come under intense scrutiny and pressure. The tension between the rule of law, often seen as the preserve of the judicial branches of government, and the sovereignty of the elected branches is palpable. In a time of the “strong man,” allegedly “populist leaders” who seemingly are pushing the limits of the rule of law, the breakdown of collaboration and debate, and the ever-present influence of social media, this tension will only become more …
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.
Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners have a constitutional right to relief from continued imprisonment if the prisoner’s conviction or sentence contravenes a new substantive rule of constitutional law. Specifically, the Court held that prisoners with such claims are constitutionally entitled to collateral relief in state court—at least if the state courts are open to other claims for collateral relief on the ground that their continued imprisonment is unlawful. In our article, The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Relief, we argued that, under two lines of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Supremacy …