Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- 2004 Supreme Court term (1)
- All-payer claims database (1)
- American History (1)
- California Law Review (1)
-
- Chemerinsky (1)
- Chief justice (1)
- Claim Preclusion (1)
- Composition of the court (1)
- Congress enforcement power (1)
- Conservative court (1)
- Constitutional rulings (1)
- Courts (1)
- Customary international law (1)
- ERISA (1)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1)
- Erwin Chemerinsky (1)
- Executive power (1)
- Federal power (1)
- Federal statute (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Gobielle (1)
- Gonzales v. Raich (1)
- Harry Blackmun (1)
- Ineffective assistance of counsel (1)
- International and municipal law (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial deference (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Justice Blackmun And Preclusion In The State-Federal Context, Karen Nelson Moore
Justice Blackmun And Preclusion In The State-Federal Context, Karen Nelson Moore
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
No abstract provided.
Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Erisa Preemption After Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual: Completing The Retrenchment Of Shaw, Edward A. Zelinsky
Erisa Preemption After Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual: Completing The Retrenchment Of Shaw, Edward A. Zelinsky
Articles
Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent preemption decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In Gobeille, the Court completed the process of reconciling the restrained approach to ERISA preemption announced in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. with the Court’s literal and expansive approach adopted earlier in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Gobeille consummated this reconciliation by confirming the sub silentio retrenchment of Shaw and its “plain language” approach in favor of Traveler’s broader construction of ERISA preemption. …
The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule
The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule
Notre Dame Law Review
This Article looks at a rare part of the judicial role: those exceptional cases when the judge is called upon to pass judgment on the constitution itself. This arises in three groups of cases, roughly speaking. First, in exceptional cases the validity of the constitution and the legal order is thrown into dispute. Second, on some occasions the judge is asked to rule on the transition from one constitutional order to another. Third, there are some cases in which the health of the constitutional order requires the judge to act not merely beyond the law, as it were, but actually …
Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati
Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati
Faculty Scholarship
One of the most heated debates of the last two decades in U.S. legal academia focuses on customary international law’s domestic status after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. At one end, champions of the “modern position” support customary international law’s (“CIL”) wholesale incorporation into post-Erie federal common law. At the other end, “revisionists” argue that federal courts cannot apply CIL as federal law absent federal legislative authorization. Scholars on both sides of the Erie debate also make claims about the sources judges reference when discerning CIL. They then use these claims to support their arguments regarding CIL’s domestic status. Interestingly, neither …
Federalism All The Way Up: State Standing And "The New Process Federalism", Jessica Bulman-Pozen
Federalism All The Way Up: State Standing And "The New Process Federalism", Jessica Bulman-Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
This commentary considers what federalism all the way up means for Gerken’s proposed new process federalism. The state-federal integration she documents underscores why judicial policing of “conditions for federal-state bargaining” cannot be limited to state-federal relations in the traditional sense. It must extend to state challenges to the allocation and exercise of authority within the federal government. The new process federalism would therefore do well to address when states will have standing to bring such cases in federal court. After Part I describes contemporary federalism-all-the-way-up litigation, Part II suggests that Gerken’s “Federalism 3.0” complicates both traditional parens patriae and sovereignty …