Public Law and Legal Theory Commons^™

Civil Rights Plaintiffs And John Doe Defendants: A Study In § 1983 Procedure, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Are Title Vi's Disparate Impact Regulations Valid?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Essay, however, contends that section 602 disparate impact regulations in Tide VI are valid because Congress has implicitly sanctioned their creation, and explicitly approved them in subsequent related statutes.

Part II of this Essay discusses the legislative history of Tide VI, which suggests that Congress intended to give administrative agencies discretion to define "discrimination" in their Tide VI regulations as prohibiting either intentional conduct or actions having disparate impacts against racial minorities as long as the President approved such rules.

Part III illustrates that five different Congresses have enacted four subsequent related statutes that explicitly incorporate Tide VI disparate …

The Unitary Executive During The Second Half-Century, Steven G. Calabresi, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

Recent Supreme Court decisions and political events have reinvigorated the debate over Congress's authority to restrict the President's control over the administration of the law. The initial debate focused on whether the Constitutional Convention rejected the executive by committee employed by the Articles of the Confederation in favor of a unitary executive in which all administrative authority is centralized in the President. More recently, the debate has turned towards historical practices. Some scholars have suggested that independent agencies and special counsels have become such established features of the constitutional landscape as to preempt arguments in favor of the unitary executive. …

Apprendi In The States: The Virtues Of Federalism As A Structural Limit On Errors, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.

One such …