Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (2)
- Article III (1)
- Cases and controversies (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
-
- Death penalty (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Historical practice (1)
- Information litigation (1)
- Informational injury (1)
- Injury in fact (1)
- International law (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Jury trials (1)
- Justice Antonin Scalia (1)
- Justiciability (1)
- Legal theory (1)
- Lenity (1)
- Methodology (1)
- Notice (1)
- Rule of law (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Scalia (1)
- Search and seizure (1)
- Security council (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Standing to sue (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
Justice Scalia’S Originalism And Formalism: The Rule Of Criminal Law As A Law Of Rules, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Far too many reporters and pundits collapse law into politics, assuming that the left–right divide between Democratic and Republican appointees neatly explains politically liberal versus politically conservative outcomes at the Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia defied such caricatures. His consistent judicial philosophy made him the leading exponent of originalism, textualism, and formalism in American law, and over the course of his three decades on the Court, he changed the terms of judicial debate. Now, as a result, supporters and critics alike start with the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text rather than loose appeals to legislative …
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
Two decades after Justice Douglas coined “injury in fact” as the token of admission to federal court under Article III, Justice Scalia sealed it into the constitutional canon in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In the two decades since Lujan, Justice Scalia has thrown increasingly pointed barbs at the permissive standing doctrine of the Warren Court, maintaining it is founded on impermissible recognition of “Psychic Injury.” Justice Scalia and his acolytes take the position that Article III requires a tough minded, common sense and practical approach. Injuries in fact must be "tangible" "direct" "concrete" "de facto" realities in time and …
The Scrivener's Error, Ryan David Doerfler
The Scrivener's Error, Ryan David Doerfler
All Faculty Scholarship
It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called “scrivener’s errors,” if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that, if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it “might be rewriting the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.”
This Essay argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. In turn, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) …
Presidential War Powers As An Interactive Dynamic: International Law, Domestic Law, And Practice-Based Legal Change, Curtis A. Bradley, Jean Galbraith
Presidential War Powers As An Interactive Dynamic: International Law, Domestic Law, And Practice-Based Legal Change, Curtis A. Bradley, Jean Galbraith
All Faculty Scholarship
There is a rich literature on the circumstances under which the United Nations Charter or specific Security Council resolutions authorize nations to use force abroad, and there is a rich literature on the circumstances under which the U.S. Constitution and statutory law allows the President to use force abroad. These are largely separate areas of scholarship, addressing what are generally perceived to be two distinct levels of legal doctrine. This Article, by contrast, considers these two levels of doctrine together as they relate to the United States. In doing so, it makes three main contributions. First, it demonstrates striking parallels …