Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (2)
- Legal Remedies (2)
- Military, War, and Peace (2)
-
- Administrative Law (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Courts (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Energy and Utilities Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- International Law (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Legislation (1)
- National Security Law (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Keyword
-
- Civil rights (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Legal history (2)
- 1919 general strike (1)
- Administrative law (1)
-
- Arbitrary and capricious (1)
- Article III courts (1)
- Book review (1)
- Canada (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Class action (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Commissioners (1)
- Communist Party of Canada (1)
- Concurrences (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Deliberation-forcing (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Dissents (1)
- Due process (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Government speech (1)
- History (1)
- Independent Labour Party (1)
- International conflict (1)
- International law (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton
Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton
Publications
The government is unique among speakers because of its coercive power, its substantial resources, its privileged access to national security and intelligence information, and its wide variety of expressive roles as commander-in-chief, policymaker, educator, employer, property owner, and more. Precisely because of this power, variety, and ubiquity, the government's speech can both provide great value and inflict great harm to the public. In wartime, more specifically, the government can affirmatively choose to use its voice to inform, inspire, heal, and unite -- or instead to deceive, divide, bully, and silence.
In this essay, I examine the U.S. government's role as …
The Modern Class Action Rule: Its Civil Rights Roots And Relevance Today, Suzette M. Malveaux
The Modern Class Action Rule: Its Civil Rights Roots And Relevance Today, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
The modern class action rule recently turned fifty years old — a golden anniversary. However, this milestone is marred by an increase in hate crimes, violence and discrimination. Ironically, the rule is marking its anniversary within a similarly tumultuous environment as its birth — the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. This irony calls into question whether this critical aggregation device is functioning as the drafters intended. This article makes three contributions.
First, the article unearths the rule’s rich history, revealing how the rule was designed in 1966 to enable structural reform and broad injunctive relief in civil rights cases. …
Book Review, Anna Spain Bradley
Book Review, Ahmed White
Class Actions, Civil Rights, And The National Injunction, Suzette M. Malveaux
Class Actions, Civil Rights, And The National Injunction, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
This essay is a response to Professor Samuel Bray’s article proposing a blanket prohibition against injunctions that enjoin a defendant’s conduct with respect to nonparties. He argues that national injunctions are illegitimate under Article III and traditional equity and result in a number of difficulties.
This Response argues, from a normative lens, that Bray’s proposed ban on national injunctions should be rejected. Such a bright-line rule against national injunctions is too blunt an instrument to address the complexity of our tripartite system of government, our pluralistic society and our democracy. Although national injunctions may be imperfect and crude forms of …
Administrative Dissents, Sharon B. Jacobs
Administrative Dissents, Sharon B. Jacobs
Publications
Commissioners, like judges, dissent. They do so at length, with vigor, and with persistence. Yet while separate judicial decisions are the subject of a rich literature, their administrative counterparts have long languished in obscurity. A closer look is warranted, however, because studying administrative dissent can enhance our understanding of internal agency operations as well as the relationships between agencies and other actors. This Article presents the results of an original review of separate statements at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dating back four decades. It uses these findings to move beyond two common generalizations about …