Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

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 …

Siskel And Ebert At The Supreme Court, Thomas E. Baker

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Redefining the Supreme Court's Role: A Theory of Managing the Federal Judicial Process by Samuel Estreicher and John Sexton

Choosing Judges The Democratic Way, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

A generation ago, the pressing question in constitutional law was the countermajoritarian difficulty.' Americans insisted their government was a democratic republic and took that to mean rule by a majority of elected representatives in various offices and bodies, federal and local. Yet courts whose members had not won election presumed to override the actions of executive and legislative officers who had. The conventional answer to this apparent paradox was the Constitution, which arguably owed its existence to the people directly. Judicial review was justified, accordingly, when court decisions were rooted firmly in the particular text, structure, or historical backdrop of …

Arizona V. Youngblood: Does The Criminal Defendant Lose His Right To Due Process When The State Loses Exculpatory Evidence?, Willis C. Moore

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Weighted Voting, Richard David Emery ,Esq.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Honorable George C. Pratt, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination, Charles Stephen Ralston, Paul Kamenar, William Bradford Reynolds, Gail Wright-Sirmans

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bad Judicial Activism And Liberal Federal-Courts Doctrine: A Comment On Professor Doernberg And Professor Redish, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

JUDUCIAL ACTIVISM IS often portrayed as a liberal vice. This perception is wrong both historically and, as Professor Redish argues, ³ currently as well. The federal judiciary has been and still is an activist institution, working with both substantive law and jurisdictional rules to achieve its own policy goals. It has done this in statutory, constitutional, and common-law matters. Specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States has actively-shaped the jurisdiction of the federal courts in a restrictive and generally conservative manner.

Professors Doernberg⁴ and Redish attack this last form of activism by the federal courts, activism in shaping …

Political Law, Legalistic Politics: A Recent History Of The Political Question Doctrine, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Housing Discrimination, Richard F. Bellman ,Esq., Richard Cahn ,Esq.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Dean Howard Glickstein, Honorable Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fourth Amendment, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scholars' Reply To Professor Fried, Yale Kamisar, Lee C. Bollinger, Judith C. Areen, Barbara A. Black

Articles

As Solicitor General of the United States, Charles Fried, like any good advocate, was often in the position of attempting to generate broad holdings from relatively narrow and particularistic Supreme Court decisions. This was especially true in affirmative action cases. There, the Department of Justice argued that cautious precedents actually stood for the broad proposition that measures designed to put members of disadvantaged groups on a plane of equality should, for constitutional purposes, be treated the same as measures intended to stigmatize or subordinate them. The Supreme Court, however, has consistently rejected this reading of its precedents and the broad …

Commentary On 'Multiemployer Bargaining Rules': The Limitations Of A Strictly Economic Analysis, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Labor law bulks large on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. Yet never would I have included Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, dealing with the seemingly mundane issue of an employer's right to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining, in the select company of cases addressing such pulse-quickening subjects as affirmative action, picketing as free speech, and union antitrust liability. Professor Douglas Leslie's elegant and provocative article shows just how wrong I was--or at least just how far imaginative analysis can go toward seeing a world in a grain of sand. I lay no claim to expertise …

Duckworth V. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case That May Cause Much Mischief, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Yale Kamisar, the country's foremost scholar of Miranda and police interrogation, presents an analysis and critique of the Supreme Court's latest interpretation of Miranda. In Duckworth, a 5-4 Court upheld the "if and when" language systematically used by the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." The real issue was whether the police effectively conveyed the substance of a vital part of Miranda: the right to have a lawyer appointed prior to any questioning. Professor Kamisar …