Rule of Law Commons^™

Depoliticizing The Supreme Court Through Term Limits: A Worthwhile Reform Effort, Kara King

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

The United States Supreme Court is in a legitimacy crisis. Americans are losing faith in the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government. As a result, policymakers and academics have put forth several proposals to reform the Court. The concept of an eighteen-year term limit maintains some bipartisan support and stands out as the most likely reform. This Article argues that term limits could help depoliticize the nomination process, bring greater stability to the Court, and restore confidence in the Court.

Sovereign Immunity And Interstate Government Tort, Louise Weinberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This paper argues that the Supreme Court made a serious mistake last term, when, in a case of interstate government tort, it tore up useful options that should be available to each state for the rare cases in which they would be of service. In seeking to insulate a state from liability when its employee intrudes on a sister state’s territory and causes injury there, the Court stripped every state of power, in cases of interstate government tort, to try injuries occurring on its own territory to its own residents—an unprecedented disregard of a state’s acknowledged traditional interests. Indeed, the …

Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …

Hernandez, Bivens, And The Supreme Court’S Expanding Theory Of Judicial Abdication, William J. Aceves

Michigan Law Review Online

This Essay examines the Hernandez decision and critiques the Court’s expanding theory of judicial abdication, an approach with profound implications for civil rights and the future of the judiciary. While Hernandezinvolved a cross-border shooting, the Court’s reasoning extends to all facets of civil litigation. Accordingly, this Essay proposes a new theory of judicial engagement that would empower federal courts to grant relief for constitutional claims against federal officials. It is a theory founded in extant constitutional jurisprudence that the Court has used for over a century to apply the Bill of Rights to state and local governments—an approach that …

Age Of Unreason: Rationality And The Regulatory State, Louise Weinberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A curious phenomenon, not previously remarked, appears in current international and interstate cases in a common configuration. These are cases in which a nonresident sues a company at the company’s home; the plaintiff would almost certainly win there on stipulated facts; and judgment is for the defendant as a matter of law. In cases in this familiar configuration it appears that courts will struggle to find rationales. Judges attempt to rely on arguments which ordinarily would be serviceable, but which, in cases so configured, seem to become irrational. Because the relevant configuration of cases is common, the problem is widespread. …

The Making Of The Supreme Court Bar: How Business Created A Solicitor General For The Private Sector, Jeremy Pilaar

Michigan Law Review Online

This Essay tells a simple but important story about power and the law: that of the rise of the modern Supreme Court bar. Since 1985, a small cadre of private attorneys has come to dominate Court advocacy. While the share of lawyers making their first arguments before the justices fell from 76% to 43% between 1980 and 2007, the fraction with ten or more arguments under their belt rose from 2% to 28%. Similarly, while litigators with five or more previous arguments were responsible for 5.8% of the case petitions granted in October Term 1980, that quotient soared to 55.5% …

Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations, and simply the preferred course. Often overlooked is the fact that stare decisis is also a judicial doctrine, an analytical system used to guide the rules of decision for resolving concrete disputes that come before the courts.

This Article examines stare decisis as applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest doctrinal authority. A review of the Court’s jurisprudence yields two principal lessons about the modern doctrine of stare decisis. First, the doctrine is comprised largely of malleable factors …

Taking Care Of Federal Law, Leah Litman

Articles

Article II of the Constitution vests the “executive power” in the President and directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But do these provisions mean that only the President may execute federal law? Two lines of Supreme Court precedent suggest conflicting answers to that question. In several prominent separation-of-powers cases, the Court has suggested that only the President may execute federal law: “The Constitution requires that a President chosen by the entire Nation oversee the execution of the laws.” Therefore, the Court has reasoned, Congress may not create private rights of action that allow nonexecutive …

The Rhetoric Of Constitutional Absolutism, Eric Berger

William & Mary Law Review

Though constitutional doctrine is famously unpredictable, Supreme Court Justices often imbue their constitutional opinions with a sense of inevitability. Rather than concede that evidence is sometimes equivocal, Justices insist with great certainty that they have divined the correct answer. This Article examines this rhetoric of constitutional absolutism and its place in our broader popular constitutional discourse. After considering examples of the Justices’ rhetorical performances, this Article explores strategic, institutional, and psychological explanations for the phenomenon. It then turns to the rhetoric’s implications, weighing its costs and benefits. This Article ultimately argues that the costs outweigh the benefits and proposes a …

Public Consensus As Constitutional Authority, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Barry Friedman's new book The Will of the People attempts to dissolve constitutional law's countermajoritariand ifficulty by showing that, in practice,t he Supreme Court does only what the public will tolerate. His account succeeds if "the countermajoritarian difficulty" refers to the threat that courts will run the country in ways that contravene majority preference, but not if the "the countermajoritarian difficulty" refers to the need to explain the legitimate sources of judicial authority in cases where decisions do contravene majority preference. Friedman's book does not pursue the second possibility, and may suggest that doing so is unimportant, in part because …

Stare Decisis As Judicial Doctrine, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations, and simply the preferred course. Often overlooked is the fact that stare decisis is also a judicial doctrine, an analytical system used to guide the rules of decision for resolving concrete disputes that come before the courts.

This Article examines stare decisis as applied by the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest doctrinal authority. A review of the Court’s jurisprudence yields two principal lessons about the modern doctrine of stare decisis. First, the doctrine is comprised largely of malleable factors …

Connecting The Dots Between The Constitution, The Marshall Trilogy, And United States V. Lara: Notes Toward A Blueprint For The Next Legislative Restoration Of Tribal Sovereignty, Ann E. Tweedy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This law review Article examines: (1) the underpinnings of tribal sovereignty within the American system; (2) the need for restoration based on the Court's drastic incursions on tribal sovereignty over the past four decades and the grave circumstances, particularly tribal governments' inability to protect tribal interests on the reservation and unchecked violence in Indian Country, that result from the divestment of tribal sovereignty; (3) the concept of restoration as illuminated by United States v. Lara, and finally (4) some possible approaches to partial restoration.

The Article first evaluates the constitutional provisions relating to Indians and the earliest federal Indian law …

On Empathy In Judgment (Measure For Measure), Kenji Yoshino

Cleveland State Law Review

This article is based on a Baker-Hostetler presentation given by the author at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. The author compares the nomination process of Supreme Court justices and the conflict between empathy and rule of law with William Shakespeare's Measure for Measure.

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The current "war on terror" provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith's "American Way," where Keith sings that "you'll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, 'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass, It's the American Way."

When Should Original Meanings Matter?, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Constitutional theory lacks an account of when each of the familiar sources of authority-text, original meaning, precedent, and so on-should be given weight. The dominant tendency is to regard all sources as potentially applicable in every case. In contrast, this Article proposes that each source of authority is pertinent in some categories of cases but not in others, much as a physical tool is appropriate for some but not all kinds of household tasks. The Article then applies this approach to identify the categories of cases in which original meaning is, or is not, a valid factor in constitutional decisionmaking.

Rebus Sic Stantibus: Notification Of Consular Rights After Medellin, Aaron A. Ostrovsky, Brandon E. Reavis

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Comment examines, through principles of public international law and U.S. jurisprudence, the relationship between U.S. courts and the ICJ to determine if the former are indeed bound by the latter's decisions, proprio motu, or if instead some Executive action is required to make the decisions binding on the judiciary. Part of this examination will entail a discussion of the potential for dialogue between the ICJ and U.S. courts to "pierce the veil of sovereignty" that traditionally conceals the inner workings of sovereign states from the scrutiny of international tribunals. Based on this assessment, the Comment then addresses how …

The Search For Incontrovertible Visual Evidence, Paul F. Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Back To The Briarpatch: An Argument In Favor Of Constitutional Meta-Analysis In State Action Determinations, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Brer Rabbit, after claiming repeatedly that he would prefer almost anything to being thrown into the briarpatch, expressed glee once tossed there. In fact, Brer Rabbit wanted to be in the briarpatch because, like most rabbits, he could navigate the briarpatch with relative ease: the briarpatch was home.

Over the course of a century, the Supreme Court has developed a great degree of familiarity with the state action doctrine, a doctrinal briar patch. Like Brer Rabbit, the Court has disclaimed repeatedly any interest in being there.

In this article, I argue that the existing tests for establishing the presence of …

Inside Campaign Finance: Myths And Realities, Michael R. Phillips

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Inside Campaign Finance: Myths and Realities by Frank J. Sarauf

The Judiciary's Use Of Supervisory Power To Control Federal Law Enforcement Activity, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In McNabb v. United States, the Supreme Court claimed- for the first time in its history-the prerogative of "establishing and maintaining civilized standards of procedure and evidence" in the exercise of "supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts." Since then, the Court has used this self-declared oversight power on numerous occasions and for a wide variety of purposes, but it has never adequately explained either the provenance or the scope of this type of judicial authority. Lower federal courts have followed suit, on the largely unexamined assumption that they too are endowed with supervisory …

Federal Court Review Of Arbitrary State Court Decisions, David T. Azrin

Michigan Law Review

Part I of this Note argues that the Thompson, Logan, and Hicks cases can be read narrowly to deal primarily with concern about protecting specific constitutional guarantees such as criminal procedural protections, equal protection guarantees, and first amendment freedoms. Arguably, in order to avoid dealing explicitly with the broader constitutional questions raised by the state decisions, the Court reversed the state decisions as arbitrary interpretations of state law. Part II argues that the rule against arbitrary state decisions suggested by Thompson, Logan, and Hicks is incompatible with federalism because it interferes with states' ability to develop law over state …

Legality And Empathy, Lynne N. Henderson

Michigan Law Review

This article rejects the assumption that legality - by which I mean the dominant belief system about the Rule and role of Law - and empathy are mutually exclusive concepts. Failure to recognize the phenomenon of empathy explicitly in legal decisions more generally may result from a fear of the emotional realm as irrational, rather than a rational. It may stem from a belief that the divide between "subject" and "object" is uncrossable. The resistance to empathy may be attributable to the adversarial ideology acquired during law school understanding the adversary is not important unless it serves one's instrumental …

A Comment On Democratic Constitutionalism, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Public's Right To Know: The Supreme Court As Pandora?, Loren P. Beth

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The Public's Right to Know: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment by David M. O'Brien

Making Campaign Finance Law Enforceable: Closing The Independent Expenditure Loophole, John P. Relman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note explores the problems posed by present attempts to define "coordination." Part I discusses generally the complexities of the coordination problem under Buckley, setting forth the rationale behind the Buckley rule and examining present efforts by Congress and the FEC to enforce the Buckley standards. Part I concludes by proposing a new definition for "coordination" designed to improve enforcement of the Buckley rule. Part II presents an alternative means for remedying the coordination problem. Rather than relying on a redefinition of coordination for proper enforcement of federal election law, this section proposes prophylactic legislation designed to regulate independent …

Justice And The Bureaucratization Of Appellate Courts, Joseph Vining

Articles

The author notes the growing bureaucratization of appellate justice in the United States and, in particular, the drafting of opinions by law clerks rather than by judges. Taking the Supreme Court of the United States as an example, and comparing its internal procedure with that of large administrative agencies, he questions whether the method of analysis familiarly used by lawyers to arrive at an authoritative statement of law is applicable to legal texts bureaucratically produced. He suggests that legal method and its presuppositions are ultimately associated with the authority of law, and concludes that there may be critical losses not …

Constitutional Interpretation, Terrance Sandalow

Articles

"[We] must never forget," Chief Justice Marshall admonished us in a statement pregnant with more than one meaning, "that it is a constitution we are expounding."' Marshall meant that the Constitution should be read as a document "intended to endure for ages.to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."'2 But he meant also that the construction placed upon the document must have regard for its "great outlines" and "important objects."'3 Limits are implied by the very nature of the task. There is not the same freedom in construing the Constitution as in constructing a …

Immunity Under The Speech Or Debate Clause For Republican And From Questioning About Sources, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Gravel v. United States, which arose out of Senator Mike Gravel's attempt to publicize the Pentagon Papers, concerned the scope of the immunity conferred upon a legislator and his aide under article I, section 6, of the United States Constitution. This provision, commonly called the "speech or debate clause," provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [United States Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." Gravel is one of the few Supreme Court interpretations of this clause.

Judicial Supremacy Re-Examined: A Proposed Alternative, G. Sidney Buchanan

Michigan Law Review

A citizen critic recently expressed to me his bitter opposition to the Warren Court's decisions on school prayer and school desegregation. If this critic were elected governor of a state or placed in some other position of governmental authority, he would almost certainly use his power to block public school desegregation and to encourage prayer reading in the public schools. Conceding that our critic would be acting controversially in so using his power, would he be acting unconstitutionally? This is the question which this Article will attempt to answer. More generally, this Article will consider the extent to which a …

Reapportionment--Nine Years Into The "Revolution" And Still Struggling, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Malapportioned legislative districts traditionally have inhibited the effective working of government at the federal, state, and local levels. By 1960, the population disparities among legislative districts had attained such great magnitude "that the integrity of representative government was in many instances endangered." The underrepresented victims of malapportionment sought relief through the courts. Initially the Supreme Court, ever hesitant to enter the "political thicket," declined to address itself to reapportionment controversies. This era of judicial inaction ended in 1962 with the Court's ruling in Baker v. Carr, in which the plaintiffs overcame the formidable barrier posed by the political-question doctrine. …