Table Of Contents,
2019
Seattle University School of Law
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Unitariness And Independence: Solicitor General Control Over Independent Agency Litigation, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
With a few exceptions, the Solicitor General controls all aspects of independent agency litigation before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General control of Supreme Court litigation creates a tension between independent agency freedom and the Solicitor General's authority. On the one hand, Solicitor General control provides the United States with a unitary voice before the Supreme Court, and provides the Court with a trustworthy litigator to explicate the government's position. On the other hand, such control may undermine the autonomy of independent agency decision making. In this Article, the author argues for a hybrid model of independent agency litigation in the …
The Steel Seizure Case: One Of A Kind?,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Steel Seizure Case: One Of A Kind?, Neal Devins, Louis Fisher
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The Majoritarian Rehnquist Court?,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Last Word Debate: How Social And Political Forces Shape Constitutional Values,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Last Word Debate: How Social And Political Forces Shape Constitutional Values, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The Amicus Machine,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Talk Loudly And Carry A Small Stick: The Supreme Court And Enemy Combatants,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Talk Loudly And Carry A Small Stick: The Supreme Court And Enemy Combatants, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Split Definitive,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.
Social Meaning And School Vouchers,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Reverse Advisory Opinions,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Reverse Advisory Opinions, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Reanimator: Mark Tushnet And The Second Coming Of The Imperial Presidency, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other),
2019
William & Mary Law School
Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …
The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove
Tara L. Grove
Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …
The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism, Tara Leigh Grove
Tara L. Grove
Many prominent jurists and scholars, including those with outlooks as diverse as Chief Justice John Roberts and Cass Sunstein, have recently advocated a “minimalist” approach to opinion writing at the Supreme Court. They assert that the Court should issue narrow, fact-bound decisions that do not resolve much beyond the case before it. I argue that minimalism, as employed by the current Supreme Court, is in tension with the structure of the Constitution. Article III and the Supremacy Clause, along with historical evidence from the Founding Era, suggest that the Constitution creates a hierarchical judiciary and gives the Court a “supreme” …
Justice Scalia's Other Standing Legacy,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Justice Scalia's Other Standing Legacy, Tara Leigh Grove
Tara L. Grove
No abstract provided.
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove
Tara L. Grove
A new brand of plaintiff has come to federal court. In cases involving the Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and partisan gerrymandering, government institutions have brought suit to redress “institutional injuries”—that is, claims of harm to their constitutional powers or duties. Jurists and scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about these lawsuits, arguing (for example) that the Senate should have standing to protect its power to ratify treaties; that the House of Representatives may sue to preserve its role in the appropriations process; and that the President may go to court to vindicate his Article II prerogatives. This Article …
Constitutional Empiricism: Quasi-Neutral Principles And Constitutional Truths,
2019
William & Mary Law School
Constitutional Empiricism: Quasi-Neutral Principles And Constitutional Truths, Timothy Zick
Timothy Zick
The absence of neutrality and objectivity in constitutional decision-making has vexed scholars and courts. In this Article, the author describes and analyzes "constitutional empiricism," a trend instituted by the Rehnquist Court, which is characterized by judicial reliance in constitutional review on empirical and scientific conventions and processes. Courts have generally relied upon traditional sources, such as text and history, to interpret consititutional powers and rights. In its search for neutrality and objectivity, however, the Court has recently turned not only to social science and other data, which are fast becoming common sources of interpretation, but also to the precepts and …
The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers,
2019
William & Mary Law School
The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg
Ronald H. Rosenberg
No abstract provided.
