Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Public Law and Legal Theory
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
“Spooky Action At A Distance”: Intangible Injury In Fact In The Information Age, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
Two decades after Justice Douglas coined “injury in fact” as the token of admission to federal court under Article III, Justice Scalia sealed it into the constitutional canon in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. In the two decades since Lujan, Justice Scalia has thrown increasingly pointed barbs at the permissive standing doctrine of the Warren Court, maintaining it is founded on impermissible recognition of “Psychic Injury.” Justice Scalia and his acolytes take the position that Article III requires a tough minded, common sense and practical approach. Injuries in fact must be "tangible" "direct" "concrete" "de facto" realities in time and …
Spelling Out Spokeo, Craig Konnoth, Seth F. Kreimer
Spelling Out Spokeo, Craig Konnoth, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
For almost five decades, the injury-in-fact requirement has been a mainstay of Article III standing doctrine. Critics have attacked the requirement as incoherent and unduly malleable. But the Supreme Court has continued to announce “injury in fact” as the bedrock of justiciability. In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court confronted a high profile and recurrent conflict regarding the standing of plaintiffs claiming statutory damages. It clarified some matters, but remanded the case for final resolution. This Essay derives from the cryptic language of Spokeo a six stage process (complete with flowchart) that represents the Court’s current equilibrium. We put …
Polyphonic Stare Decisis: Listening To Non-Article Iii Actors, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Polyphonic Stare Decisis: Listening To Non-Article Iii Actors, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
This article explores the input that non-Article III actors can and should have in the Supreme Court’s decision to reconsider a prior constitutional decision. It employs a model of constitutional decision-making that distinguishes between the articulation of constitutional meaning and the construction of constitutional doctrine to identify several different stages at which a court can adhere to or depart from precedent and examines the persuasive power of non-Article III input at each stage.