Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Deference (2)
- Statutory interpretation (2)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Boilerplate (1)
-
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1)
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (1)
- Comity (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Cooperation (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Delegation (1)
- Expected value (1)
- Extradition Clause (1)
- Fear (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Full Faith and Credit Clause (1)
- Future harm (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Habeas review (1)
- Harrington v. Richter (1)
- History (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immunity (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Asking The Nearest Hippie, Shubha Ghosh
Asking The Nearest Hippie, Shubha Ghosh
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
It is an honor to be asked to contribute to this Symposium in honor of Margaret Jane Radin. It is particularly exciting to be able to engage with her scholarship during the summer of 2015 (the time this essay was written) when so many compelling legal issues are coming to a head: same sex marriage and the recognition of dignity as a constitutional value, pragmatic treatment of controversial regulation such as the Affordable Care Act, the death penalty under scrutiny as two justices unequivocally reaffirm its unconstitutionality, voting rights protections roll back, police brutality against African-American citizens as a daily …
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, Tom I. Romero, Ii
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, Tom I. Romero, Ii
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and …
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law
The practice of law is not a game. Administrative law in particular can implicate important issues that impact people’s health, safety, and welfare and change business’ profitability or even viability. Nonetheless, it can seem like a game. This is because courts rarely explain administrative law rulings in terms of the public purposes and policies at issue in lawsuits. Instead, the courts’ administrative law opinions tend to turn on arcane interpretive doctrines with silly names, such as the “Chevron two-step” or “Chevron step zero.” To advance doctrinal arguments, advocates and courts engage in linguistic debates that resemble a smokescreen—tending to obscure …
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 …
Reflections On Comity In The Law Of American Federalism, Gil Seinfeld
Reflections On Comity In The Law Of American Federalism, Gil Seinfeld
Articles
Comity is a nebulous concept familiar to us from the law of international relations. Roughly speaking, it describes a set of reciprocal norms among nations that call for one state to recognize, and sometimes defer to, the laws, judgments, or interests of another. Comity also features prominently in the law of American federalism, but in that context, it operates within limits that have received almost no attention from scholarly commentators. Specifically, although courts routinely describe duties that run from one state to another, or from the federal government to the states, as exercises in comity, they almost never rely on …
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 …
A Standard Of Global Justice, Steven R. Ratner
A Standard Of Global Justice, Steven R. Ratner
Book Chapters
This chapter presents the standard of justice that is used in this book to appraise international law. That standard is based on two core principles, or what the book calls pillars—the promotion of international and intrastate peace, on the one hand, and respect for the basic human rights of all individuals, on the other. The justice of international norms is determined by the extent to which they lead to a state of affairs involving peace and human rights, with some room for deontological considerations in limited situations. The chapter defends the choice of these two pillars. It elaborates on the …