Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (18)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (18)
- Law and Society (16)
- Judges (14)
- Courts (13)
-
- Law and Politics (12)
- Fourteenth Amendment (11)
- Legal History (10)
- First Amendment (8)
- Criminal Law (5)
- Criminal Procedure (5)
- Human Rights Law (5)
- Legislation (5)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (4)
- Health Law and Policy (4)
- Religion Law (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Civil Law (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Sexuality and the Law (3)
- Environmental Law (2)
- Law and Gender (2)
- Law and Psychology (2)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2)
- Legal Remedies (2)
- Torts (2)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (1)
- Publication
-
- Adam Lamparello (10)
- John T. Valauri (2)
- Abraham Z Melamed (1)
- Avidan Cover (1)
- Brett W Hastings (1)
-
- Daniel M Braun (1)
- Danieli Evans (1)
- Ellis Washington (1)
- Fabio P L Almeida (1)
- Frederick Mark Gedicks (1)
- George Skouras (1)
- Gordon D Ballingrud (1)
- Ian C Bartrum (1)
- Jeffery L Johnson (1)
- Jesse Weinstein (1)
- John Lunstroth (1)
- John R Ablan (1)
- Lawrence B. Solum (1)
- Michael Anthony Lawrence (1)
- Mitchell Widener (1)
- Robert R Robinson (1)
- Shlomo C. Pill (1)
- Vanice L. Valle (1)
- Vito Breda (1)
- Zeina Jallad (1)
- ellen p. goodman (1)
- marla j ferguson (1)
Articles 31 - 37 of 37
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan
Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan
John R Ablan
When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …
Introduction To The Theory Of Law: History And The Unity Of Legal Things, John Lunstroth
Introduction To The Theory Of Law: History And The Unity Of Legal Things, John Lunstroth
John Lunstroth
I propose a general theory of the law. I begin with the history of the western legal tradition. When tracing laws, or legal things, over long periods of time it is apparent that the positivist theory is inadequate to describe law. Natural law similarly fails to explain what is seen in the historical record. I suggest an historicist theory best describes the law when seen as a conceptual and historical whole. I then identify a fundamental break in the historical record, the Enlightenment, when the scientific worldview became dominant. The scientific gaze splits nature (including law) into two parts, moral …
Presumed Imminence: Judicial Risk Assessment In The Post-9/11 World, Avidan Cover
Presumed Imminence: Judicial Risk Assessment In The Post-9/11 World, Avidan Cover
Avidan Cover
Court opinions in the terrorism context are often distinguished by fact finding that relates to risk assessment. These risk assessments‑inherently policy decisions‑are influenced by cultural cognition and by cognitive errors common to probability determinations, particularly those made regarding highly dangerous and emotional events. In a post-9/11 world, in which prevention and intelligence are prioritized over prosecution, courts are more likely to overstate the potential harm, neglect the probability, and presume the imminence of terrorist attacks. As a result courts apt to defer to the government and require less evidence in support of measures that curtail civil liberties. This Article takes …
Judicialization Of Socio-Economic Rights In Brazil: The Subversion Of An Egalitarian Discourse, Vanice L. Valle
Judicialization Of Socio-Economic Rights In Brazil: The Subversion Of An Egalitarian Discourse, Vanice L. Valle
Vanice L. Valle
This article describes the historical origins of the Brazilian constitutional frame of socio-economic rights, and the political context that lead to their enforcement through the Judiciary. Based in a particular constitutional text that asserts socioeconomic rights’ immediate enforceability, the present theoretical comprehension is that they establish the State’s obligation to provide goods and services. The consequence is an intense judicialization of rights such as health, education and housing, which results in a wide exercise of judicial activism in controlling public policies – with the Judiciary renouncing to the objective rational criteria consubstantiated in the law, and to an approach that …
Originalism And The Necessary And Proper Clause, John T. Valauri
Originalism And The Necessary And Proper Clause, John T. Valauri
John T. Valauri
This article analyzes a largely unacknowledged and, therefore, unsolved problem in constitutional theory and doctrine—the problem of multiplicity of meanings (i.e., encountering multiple conflicting meanings in practice when your doctrine or theory postulates just one). It does this by examining and comparing the debate over the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause in constitutional doctrine and the New Originalism’s notion of original public meaning in constitutional theory in order to help us get beyond the false and misleading assumptions underlying and motivating the myth of unitary meaning. It contrasts the role of the public and the express (as in …
“Nixon’S Sabotage”: How Politics Pushed The “Discriminatory Purpose” Requirement Into Equal Protection Law, Danieli Evans
“Nixon’S Sabotage”: How Politics Pushed The “Discriminatory Purpose” Requirement Into Equal Protection Law, Danieli Evans
Danieli Evans
This article describes the way that politics—resistance from the elected branches coupled with President Nixon appointing Chief Justice Burger—shaped the Court’s unanimous decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), a school desegregation case that played a crucial role in limiting the forms of state action considered unconstitutional discrimination. Chief Justice Burger defied longstanding Supreme Court procedure to assign himself the majority opinion even though he disagreed with the majority outcome. Justice Douglas alleged that he did this “in order to write Nixon’s view of freedom of choice into the law.” Justice Burger’s opinion laid the foundation for limiting …
The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun
The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun
Daniel M Braun
The rise of modern mass tort litigation in the U.S. has transformed punitive damages into something of a “hot button” issue. Since the size of punitive damage awards grew so dramatically in the past half century, this private law remedy has begun to involve issues of constitutional rights that traditionally pertained to criminal proceedings. This has created a risky interplay between tort and criminal law, and courts have thus been trying to find ways to properly manage punitive damage awards. The once rapidly expanding universe of punitive damages is therefore beginning to contract. There remain, however, very serious difficulties. Despite …