Jurisprudence Commons^™

Let The Right Ones In: The Supreme Court's Changing Approach To Justiciability, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Duquesne Law Review

In last term's blockbuster case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the considerations Justice Alito cited for overturning Roe and Casey was that they "have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines."¹ Alito asserted that abortion jurisprudence has, among other things, "ignored the Court's third-party standing doctrine."² Whether that is a fair description of the case law is debatable. But it raises the question of whether the newly ascendant conservative majority might likewise distort standing doctrine, and other justiciability doctrines, in order to decide particular, controversial issues.

Applying Bentham's Theory Of Fallacies To Chief Justice Robert's Reasoning In West Virginia V. Epa, Dana Neacsu

Duquesne Law Review

There are two issues in West Virginia v. EPA.¹ One regards justiciability, and the other delegation. Article III of the Federal Constitution limits justiciability to controversies, to disputes involving an injured party whose harm the judiciary believes it can remedy. The Constitution is silent on delegation.

This Essay summarizes the Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA.² It also analyzes Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning and addresses the case's flaws from two perspectives. It references the Court's decision connecting it to the so-called New Deal Cases,³ because in both Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,^{4 …}