Litigation Commons^™

Requiring The Executive To Turn Square Corners: The Supreme Court Increases Agency Accountability In Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California, Claudia J. Bernstein

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Administrative agencies frequently promulgate rules that have dramatic effects on peoples’ lives. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) is one such example. DACA grants certain unlawful immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation, as well as ancillary benefits such as work permits. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought to rescind DACA on the basis that the program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This Comment analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision about DACA’s recission in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California. In rejecting DHS’s attempt to rescind DACA, the Court strengthened agency accountability …

Self-Represented Litigants And The Access To Justice Revolution In The State Courts: Cross-Pollinating Perspectives Toward A Dialogue For Innovation In The Courts And The Administrative System, Richard Zorza

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

In the last ten to fifteen years, state courts have responded to a tidal wave of self-represented litigants with a wide range of innovations that are fundamentally transforming the courts. These innovations impact the whole system and range from new ways of accepting cases into the system to innovative courtroom procedures and management practices, and from a more proactive process of managing the flow of cases to innovations that help make sure that the parties comply with the court's orders. Indeed, the Self-Represented Litigation Network, a national network of groups working for access to justice for the self-represented, has identified …

Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

In numerous federal environmental statutes, Congress gave plaintiffs the right to recover attorneys' fees when the court finds them "appropriate." In Ruckleshaus v. Sierra Club, the United States Supreme Court held that it was only "appropriate" to grant attorneys' fees when the plaintiff had at least partially prevailed on the merits. The decision ignored both the important role environmental groups play in the interpretation and development of regulatory programs through litigation and the ability of the lower courts to determine when attorneys' fees were "appropriate." The Court, instead, focused on the adversarial nature of such groups and the traditional American …