Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Deference (1)
- Expected value (1)
-
- Fear (1)
- Future harm (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Habeas review (1)
- Harrington v. Richter (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Judical review (1)
- Judicial activism (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Laird v. Tatum (1)
- Lockyer v. Andrade (1)
- Postconviction challenges (1)
- Precedent (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Probability (1)
- Standards (1)
- Standing (1)
- State courts (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Williams v. Taylor (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt
Michigan Law Review
The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Standing Uncertainty: An Expected-Value Standard For Fear-Based Injury In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa, Andrew C. Sand
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff can have Article III standing based on a fear of future harm, or fear-based injury. The Court’s approach to fear-based injury, however, has been unclear and inconsistent. This Note seeks to clarify the Court’s doctrine using principles from probability theory. It contends that fear-based injury should be governed by a substantial-risk standard that encapsulates the probability concept of expected value. This standard appears in footnote 5 of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, a recent case in which the Court held that a group of plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of …