Judges Commons^™

The Supreme Court's Legitimacy Dilemma, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law Leading Cases: Judicial Elections, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

How Merrick Garland Could Help Heal America, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

No abstract provided.

Rationing The Constitution: Beyond And Below, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

If The Judicial Confirmation Process Is Broken, Can A Statute Fix It?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

What's A Judge To Do? Remedying The Remedy In Institutional Reform Litigation, Susan Poser

Susan Poser

Democracy by Decree is the latest contribution to a scholarly literature, now nearly thirty-years old, which questions whether judges have the legitimacy and the capacity to oversee the remedial phase of institutional reform litigation. Previous contributors to this literature have come out on one side or the other of the legitimacy and capacity debate. Abram Chayes, Owen Fiss, and more recently, Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin, have all argued that the proper role of judges is to remedy rights violations and that judges possess the legitimate institutional authority to order structural injunctions. Lon Fuller, Donald Horowitz, William Fletcher, and Gerald …

Active Judicial Governance, James A. Gardner

James Gardner

Evidence marshaled in a new article by Jonathan Marshfield suggests strongly that unlike judges of U.S. federal courts, judges of American state supreme courts both recognize and embrace their role as active participants in the process of indirect popular self-rule. Consequently, they much more willingly serve as active and self-conscious vectors of governance. This is not to say that state judges lack appropriate judicial humility; it is to say merely that they possess a different and more nuanced understanding of the role of courts in American government than some of their federal counterparts.

Attorney General V Mutuna And Others (Appeal No. 088/2012) [2013] Zmsc 38, Muna B. Ndulo

Muna B Ndulo

No abstract provided.

Randomized Judicial Review, Andrei Marmor

Andrei Marmor

One of the main arguments in support of constitutional judicial review points to the need to curtail the legal and political power of majority rule instantiated by democratic legislative institutions. This article aims to challenge the counter majoritarian argument for judicial review by showing that there is very little difference, at least morally speaking, between the current structure of constitutional judicial review in the US, and a system that would impose limits on majoritarian decisions procedures by an entirely randomized mechanism. The argument is based on a hypothetical model of a randomized system of judicial review, and proceeds to show …

The Supreme Court's Political Docket: How Ideology And The Chief Justice Control The Court's Agenda And Shape Law, Benjamin B. Johnson

Benjamin Johnson

Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew Steilen

Matthew Steilen

This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …

The Roberts Court And Freedom Of Speech, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

This is an edited version of a speech delivered on December 16, 2010 in Washington, D.C., as part of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Distinguished Speaker Series. This speech was given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in December 2010 as part of the FCBA's Distinguished Speaker Series. In the speech, Dean Chemerinsky offers his perspectives on and analysis of the Supreme Court's position on freedom of speech in recent years. He highlights important recent freedom of speech decisions made by the Roberts Court, and gives some projections as to where the court is heading in the years to come, given its …

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Tracey George

No abstract provided.

Law, Politics, And Legacy Building At The Mclachlin Court In 2014, Jamie Cameron

Jamie Cameron

This Article was written for Osgoode Hall Law School’s annual Constitutional Cases conference, and provides the keynote overview of the McLachlin Court’s 2014 constitutional jurisprudence. The Court’s 2014 constitutional decisions (Appointment and Senate References; Tsilqot’in Nation; Trial Lawyers) and restrictions on Mr. Big operations (Hart), in combination with a tsunami of Charter decisions early in 2015 (the 2015 Labour Trilogy; Carter v. Canada; R. v. Nur; and others), made this a legacy-building year. More than an overview, this Article probes the nature of the McLachlin Court’s legacy this year and the relationship between legal and political dynamics, to ask: in …

What Kind Of Judge Is Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland?, Caren Morrison

Caren Myers Morrison

No abstract provided.

The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …

A Catalogue Of Judicial Federalism In The United States, Thomas E. Baker

Thomas E. Baker

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng

Michael P. Seng

No abstract provided.

Ice Skating Up Hill: Constitutional Challenges To Sec Administrative Proceedings, Thomas Glassman

Thomas S Glassman

Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges …

Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins

Kevin L. Hopkins

As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …

An Empirical Analysis Of The Confirmation Hearings Of The Justices Of The Rehnquist Natural Court, 24 Const. Comment. 127 (2007), Jason J. Czarnezki, William K. Ford, Lori A. Ringhand

William K. Ford

No abstract provided.

Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, And The Rule Of Law Basis For Executive Action On Immigration, Anil Kalhan

Anil Kalhan

In November 2014, the Obama administration announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) initiative, which built upon a program instituted two years earlier, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. As mechanisms to channel the government’s scarce resources toward its enforcement priorities more efficiently and effectively, both DACA and DAPA permit certain individuals falling outside those priorities to seek “deferred action,” which provides its recipients with time-limited, nonbinding, and revocable notification that officials have exercised prosecutorial discretion to deprioritize their removal. While deferred action thereby facilitates a highly tenuous form of quasi-legal recognition …

Justice Brennan: A Tribute To A Federal Judge Who Believes In State's Rights, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1 (1986), Ann Lousin

Ann M. Lousin

No abstract provided.

Foreword, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 317 (2004), Samuel R. Olken

Samuel R. Olken

No abstract provided.

The Ironies Of Marbury V. Madison And John Marshall's Judicial Statesmanship, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 391 (2004), Samuel R. Olken

Samuel R. Olken

No abstract provided.

Chief Justice John Marshall And The Course Of American Constitutional History, 33 J. Marshall L. Rev. 743 (2000), Samuel R. Olken

Samuel R. Olken

No abstract provided.