Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (38)
- Courts (34)
- Supreme Court of the United States (16)
- Law and Politics (14)
- Jurisdiction (12)
-
- State and Local Government Law (12)
- Law and Society (10)
- Litigation (10)
- Legislation (9)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Fourteenth Amendment (7)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Legal Profession (7)
- Law and Economics (6)
- Health Law and Policy (5)
- Legal Remedies (5)
- Legal Writing and Research (5)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (5)
- Torts (5)
- Common Law (4)
- Conflict of Laws (4)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Election Law (4)
- Environmental Law (4)
- Food and Drug Law (4)
- International Law (4)
- Legal History (4)
- Agency (3)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (7)
- Selected Works (6)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (4)
- American University Washington College of Law (3)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
-
- Pepperdine University (3)
- Seattle University School of Law (3)
- SelectedWorks (3)
- University of Colorado Law School (3)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- Georgetown University Law Center (2)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- BLR (1)
- Cornell University Law School (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Notre Dame Law School (1)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (1)
- St. John's University School of Law (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Kentucky (1)
- University of Massachusetts School of Law (1)
- University of Missouri School of Law (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (5)
- Faculty Publications (4)
- Touro Law Review (4)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (3)
- Faculty Scholarship (3)
-
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Adam Lamparello (2)
- Articles (2)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (2)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Publications (2)
- All Faculty Scholarship (1)
- Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- ExpressO (1)
- George D. Brown (1)
- Gregory M Dickinson (1)
- Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (1)
- James Gardner (1)
- LLM Theses and Essays (1)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (1)
- Michael C. Dorf (1)
- Neal E. Devins (1)
- Russell A. Miller (1)
- Steven Davidoff Solomon (1)
- The Public Lands During the Remainder of the 20th Century: Planning, Law, and Policy in the Federal Land Agencies (Summer Conference, June 8-10) (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 59
Full-Text Articles in Judges
A History Of Corporate Law Federalism In The Twentieth Century, William W. Bratton
A History Of Corporate Law Federalism In The Twentieth Century, William W. Bratton
Seattle University Law Review
This Article describes the emergence of corporate law federalism across a long twentieth century. The period begins with New Jersey’s successful initiation of charter competition in 1888 and ends with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The federalism in question describes the interrelation of state and federal regulation of corporate internal affairs. This Article takes a positive approach, pursuing no normative bottom line. It makes six observations: (1) the federalism describes a division of subject matter, with internal affairs regulated by the states and securities issuance and trading regulated by the federal government; (2) the federalism is an …
Fears, Faith, And Facts In Environmental Law, William W. Buzbee
Fears, Faith, And Facts In Environmental Law, William W. Buzbee
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Environmental law has long been shaped by both the particular nature of environmental harms and by the actors and institutions that cause such harms or can address them. This nation’s environmental statutes remain far from perfect, and a comprehensive law tailored to the challenges of climate change is still elusive. Nonetheless, America’s environmental laws provide lofty, express protective purposes and findings about reasons for their enactment. They also clearly state health and environmental goals, provide tailored criteria for action, and utilize procedures and diverse regulatory tools that reflect nuanced choices.
But the news is far from good. Despite the ambitious …
The New Laboratories Of Democracy, Gerald S. Dickinson
The New Laboratories Of Democracy, Gerald S. Dickinson
Articles
Nearly a century ago, Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebman coined one of the most profound statements in American law: “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Justice Brandeis reminded us of our strong tradition of federalism, where the states, exercising their sovereign power, may choose to experiment with new legislation within their separate jurisdictions without the concern that such …
A Tipping Point In Ohio: The Primacy Model As A Path To A Consistent Application Of Judicial Federalism, The Honorable Pierre Bergeron
A Tipping Point In Ohio: The Primacy Model As A Path To A Consistent Application Of Judicial Federalism, The Honorable Pierre Bergeron
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Reflections On The Effects Of Federalism On Opioid Policy, Matthew B. Lawrence
Reflections On The Effects Of Federalism On Opioid Policy, Matthew B. Lawrence
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
No abstract provided.
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …
Say “No” To Discrimination, “Yes” To Accommodation: Why States Should Prohibit Discrimination Of Workers Who Use Cannabis For Medical Purposes, Anne Marie Lofaso, Lakyn D. Cecil
Say “No” To Discrimination, “Yes” To Accommodation: Why States Should Prohibit Discrimination Of Workers Who Use Cannabis For Medical Purposes, Anne Marie Lofaso, Lakyn D. Cecil
Seattle University Law Review
This Article addresses the question of how the law should treat medical cannabis in the employment context. Using Colorado as a primary example, we argue that states such as Colorado should amend their constitutions and legislate to provide employment protections for employees who are registered medical cannabis cardholders or registered caregivers.
Part I briefly traces the legal regulation of cannabis from an unregulated medicine known as cannabis to a highly regulated illicit substance known as marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Our travail through this history reveals, unsurprisingly, an increasing demonization of cannabis throughout the twentieth century. That socio-legal demonization …
The Majoritarian Rehnquist Court?, Neal Devins
Active Judicial Governance, James A. Gardner
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.
Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
William & Mary Law Review
Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.
The …
Active Judicial Governance, James A. Gardner
Active Judicial Governance, James A. Gardner
Journal Articles
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.
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Analyzing Justice Cardozo’S Opinions On The Constitutionality Of The New Deal, Robert J. Pushaw Jr
Analyzing Justice Cardozo’S Opinions On The Constitutionality Of The New Deal, Robert J. Pushaw Jr
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Certification: Restoring Comity In The Categorical Approach, Joshua Rothenberg
Criminal Certification: Restoring Comity In The Categorical Approach, Joshua Rothenberg
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Federal sentencing enhancements force federal courts to delve into the world of substantive state criminal law. Does a state assault statute require violent force or just offensive touching? Does a state burglary statute that criminalizes breaking into a car or a house require prosecutors to charge the location entered as an element? Whether a person with prior convictions convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) faces a minimum sentence of fifteen years and a maximum of life imprisonment rather than a maximum sentence of ten years turns upon the answers to these questions. Yet, state law often does not resolve …
The New Front In The Clean Air Wars: Fossil-Fuel Influence Over State Attorneys General- And How It Might Be Checked, Eli Savit
Michigan Law Review
Review of Struggling for Air: Power and the "War On Coal" by Richard L. Revesz and Jack Leinke, and Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America by Paul Nolette.
The Supreme Court Of Canada And Federalism: Does / Should Anyone Care Anymore?, A. Wayne Mackay
The Supreme Court Of Canada And Federalism: Does / Should Anyone Care Anymore?, A. Wayne Mackay
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
Federalism is still a relevant and vital aspect of Canadian Constitutional Law. Although a lower profile aspect than the Charter of Rights and Aboriginal rights (and in common parlance less "sexy"), the division of powers continues to an important part of the work of the Supreme Court of Canada and part of what defines us as a nation. The author argues that the Supreme Court has pursued an increasingly contextualized approach to division of powers issues - one that abandons the arid legalism of earlier days, in favour of a broad social analysis of issues based on extensive use of …
The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu
The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu
Catholic University Law Review
For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.
After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …
Whose Ox Is Being Gored? When Attitudinalism Meets Federalism, Michael C. Dorf
Whose Ox Is Being Gored? When Attitudinalism Meets Federalism, Michael C. Dorf
Michael C. Dorf
Empirical research indicates that factors such as an individual Justice's general political ideology play a substantial role in the decision of Supreme Court cases. Although this pattern holds in federalism cases, views about the proper allocation of authority between the state and federal governments - independent of whether the particular outcome in any given case is "liberal" or "conservative" - can sometimes be decisive, as demonstrated by the 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich, in which "conservative" Justices voted to invalidate a strict federal drug provision in light of California's legalization of medical marijuana, and "liberal" Justices voted to uphold …
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
All Faculty Scholarship
Shareholder litigation challenging corporate mergers is ubiquitous, with the likelihood of a shareholder suit exceeding 90%. The value of this litigation, however, is questionable. The vast majority of merger cases settle for nothing more than supplemental disclosures in the merger proxy statement. The attorneys that bring these lawsuits are compensated for their efforts with a court-awarded fee. This leads critics to charge that merger litigation benefits only the lawyers who bring the claims, not the shareholders they represent. In response, defenders of merger litigation argue that the lawsuits serve a useful oversight function and that the improved disclosures that result …
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
Steven Davidoff Solomon
Shareholder litigation challenging corporate mergers is ubiquitous, with the likelihood of a shareholder suit exceeding 90%. The value of this litigation, however, is questionable. The vast majority of merger cases settle for nothing more than supplemental disclosures in the merger proxy statement. The attorneys that bring these lawsuits are compensated for their efforts with a court-awarded fee. This leads critics to charge that merger litigation benefits only the lawyers who bring the claims, not the shareholders they represent. In response, defenders of merger litigation argue that the lawsuits serve a useful oversight function and that the improved disclosures that result …
Equilibrium, Adam Lamparello
Clinton, Ginsburg, And Centrist Federalism, Russell A. Miller
Clinton, Ginsburg, And Centrist Federalism, Russell A. Miller
Russell A. Miller
This Article examines Justice Ginsburg's overlooked federalism jurisprudence and concludes that it almost perfectly complements President Bill Clinton's New Democratic centrism, especially his pro-state federalism agenda. The Article concludes that their nuanced, "centrist" approach to federalism has two characteristics. First,t hey value the states 'governing autonomy and show respect for the state agents that realize that autonomy. Second, they credit the states as intersubjective actors engaged in the pursuit of their interests, albeit in political processes usually carried out at the federal level.
Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello
Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …
The Wages Of Crying Judicial Restraint, Randy E. Barnett
The Wages Of Crying Judicial Restraint, Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Five Justices voted to affirm the proposition that the Constitution creates a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the courts will enforce those limits. To understand why this victory was possible, it is important to understand that there are not just two versions of federalism, pre‐New Deal and post‐New Deal. There is also a third version. The failure to recognize the third version goes a long way to explain why most of my academic colleagues predicted that the right would have no chance to prevail in our constitutional challenge to the individual insurance mandate.
The first version of …
Foreword, Antonin Scalia
The Supremacy Clause As Structural Safeguard Of Federalism: State Judges And International Law In The Post-Erie Era, Sam F. Halabi
The Supremacy Clause As Structural Safeguard Of Federalism: State Judges And International Law In The Post-Erie Era, Sam F. Halabi
Faculty Publications
Against a backdrop of state constitutional and legislative initiatives aimed at limiting judicial use of international law, this Article argues that state judges have, by and large, interpreted treaties and customary international law so as to narrow their effect on state law-making prerogatives. Where state judges have used international law more liberally, they have done so to give effect to state executive and legislative objectives. Not only does this thesis suggest that the trend among state legislatures to limit state judges' use of international law is self-defeating, it also gives substance to a relatively unexplored structural safeguard of federalism: state …
Should Federalism Shield Corruption?—Mail Fraud, State Law And Post-Lopez Analysis, George D. Brown
Should Federalism Shield Corruption?—Mail Fraud, State Law And Post-Lopez Analysis, George D. Brown
George D. Brown
In this Article, Professor Brown examines the issues that federal prosecutions of state and local officials pose. The analysis focuses on prosecutions under the mail fraud statute and considers the general debate over the proper scope of federal criminal law. Professor Brodin addresses the question of whether a re-examination of mail fraud would focus on constitutional or statutory issues and by utilizing the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez examines the question of internal limits on the mail fraud statute.
An Empirical Study Of Obstacle Preemption In The Supreme Court, Gregory M. Dickinson
An Empirical Study Of Obstacle Preemption In The Supreme Court, Gregory M. Dickinson
Gregory M Dickinson
The Supreme Court’s federal preemption decisions are notoriously unpredictable. Traditional left-right voting alignments break down in the face of competing ideological pulls. The breakdown of predictable voting blocs leaves the business interests most affected by federal preemption uncertain of the scope of potential liability to injured third parties and unsure even of whether state or federal law will be applied to future claims.
This empirical analysis of the Court’s decisions over the last fifteen years sheds light on the Court’s unique voting alignments in obstacle preemption cases. A surprising anti–obstacle preemption coalition is forming as Justice Thomas gradually positions himself …