Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

6,636 Full-Text Articles 3,995 Authors 2,843,734 Downloads 143 Institutions

All Articles in Jurisprudence

Faceted Search

6,636 full-text articles. Page 1 of 154.

Finding Law, Stephen E. Sachs 2019 Duke Law School

Finding Law, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

That the judge's task is to find the law, not to make it, was once a commonplace of our legal culture. Today, decades after Erie, the idea of a common law discovered by judges is commonly dismissed -- as a "fallacy," an "illusion," a "brooding omnipresence in the sky." That dismissive view is wrong. Expecting judges to find unwritten law is no childish fiction of the benighted past, but a real and plausible option for a modern legal system.

This Essay seeks to restore the respectability of finding law, in part by responding to two criticisms made by Erie and ...


Is The First Amendment Obsolete?, Tim Wu 2018 Columbia Law School

Is The First Amendment Obsolete?, Tim Wu

Michigan Law Review

The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly different than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government.

Today, in the internet and social media age, it is no longer speech that is scarce—rather, it is the attention of listeners. And those who seek to control speech use new methods that rely on ...


If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, Lisa Santaniello 2018 Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, Lisa Santaniello

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.


Investment Disputes Oltre Lo Stato: On Global Administrative Law, And Fair And Equitable Treatment, Sebastián López Escarcena 2018 Pontifical Catholic University of Chile

Investment Disputes Oltre Lo Stato: On Global Administrative Law, And Fair And Equitable Treatment, Sebastián López Escarcena

Boston College Law Review

Global Administrative Law is an academic project that attempts to describe the emergence of a regulatory space beyond the state and to prescribe solutions to the problems it diagnoses through certain normative principles like participation, transparency, reasoned decision-making, judicial review, accountability, proportionality, and legitimate expectations. In the case of investment treaty arbitration, the principles advanced by Global Administrative Law are akin to the constitutive elements of the fair and equitable treatment that international arbitral tribunals have identified in investor-state disputes. As classified by international law scholars, these constitutive elements of fair and equitable treatment include due process, arbitrariness, non-discrimination, vigilance ...


Principles Of Risk Imposition And The Priority Of Avoiding Harm, Gregory C. Keating 2018 University of Southern California

Principles Of Risk Imposition And The Priority Of Avoiding Harm, Gregory C. Keating

University of Southern California Legal Studies Working Paper Series

Standards which prescribe more than efficient precaution against physical harm and health injury are commonplace in American environmental, health and safety regulation. The “safe level” standard, for example, requires the elimination of all significant risks. The “feasibility” standard requires the elimination of significant risks to the extent insofar as it is possible to do so without impairing the long run survival of the activities which give rise to the risks. These standards reach back more than a generation to the founding of the Environmental Protection and Occupational Health and Safety Agencies. You might expect them to be too well-entrenched to ...


A Dollar For Your Thoughts: Determining Whether Nominal Damages Prevent An Otherwise Moot Case From Being An Advisory Opinion, Maura B. Grealish 2018 Fordham University School of Law

A Dollar For Your Thoughts: Determining Whether Nominal Damages Prevent An Otherwise Moot Case From Being An Advisory Opinion, Maura B. Grealish

Fordham Law Review

This Note examines whether nominal damages should sustain an otherwise moot constitutional claim. A majority of circuit courts have held that a lone claim for nominal damages is sufficient. A minority of circuit courts have determined that nominal damages are insufficient because there is no practical effect in determining such a case. The courts in the minority analogize nominal damages to declaratory judgments and justify their rulings on the basis of judicial economy. This Note proposes that the minority rule is impermissible under current precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, this Note also proposes that the majority rule ...


Precedent In A Polarized Era, Zachary S. Price 2018 University of California, Hastings College of the Law

Precedent In A Polarized Era, Zachary S. Price

Notre Dame Law Review

My Review begins below in Part I with a brief synopsis of Professor Kozel’s argument. Part II then discusses his theory’s particular value, and challenges, in our historical moment of acute polarization and political conflict over constitutional law. To make Part II’s claims more concrete, Part III then turns to Janus and Wayfair. It uses the two cases to illustrate pressures courts may face in the years ahead and assesses how well these decisions accord with Kozel’s theory. The Review ends with a conclusion reflecting more broadly on the importance of stare decisis and other institutional ...


The Canon Wars, Anita S. Krishnakumar, Victoria Nourse 2018 St. John's University School of Law

The Canon Wars, Anita S. Krishnakumar, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Canons are taking their turn down the academic runway in ways that no one would have foretold just a decade ago. Affection for canons of construction has taken center stage in recent Supreme Court cases and in constitutional theory. Harvard Dean John Manning and originalists Will Baude and Stephen Sachs have all suggested that principles of “ordinary interpretation” including canons should inform constitutional interpretation. Given this newfound enthusiasm for canons, and their convergence in both constitutional and statutory law, it is not surprising that we now have two competing book-length treatments of the canons—one by Justice Scalia and Bryan ...


Cracking Down On Cages: Feminist And Prison Abolitionist Considerations For Litigating Solitary Confinement In Canada, Winnie Phillips-Osei 2018 Western University

Cracking Down On Cages: Feminist And Prison Abolitionist Considerations For Litigating Solitary Confinement In Canada, Winnie Phillips-Osei

Master of Laws Research Papers Repository

Guided by prison abolition ethic and intersectional feminism, my key argument is that Charter section 15 is the ideal means of eradicating solitary confinement and its adverse impact on women who are Aboriginal, racialized, mentally ill, or immigration detainees. I utilize a provincial superior court’s failing in exploring a discrimination analysis concerning Aboriginal women, to illustrate my key argument. However, because of the piecemeal fashion in which courts can effect developments in the law, the abolition of solitary confinement may very well occur through a series of ‘little wins’. In Chapter 11, I provide a constitutional analysis, arguing that ...


Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt 2018 Chicago-Kent College of Law

Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In this Essay, I argue that originalism conflicts with the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence defining the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the standard established in Boerne v. Flores, the Court limits congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to statutory remedies premised on judicially defined interpretations of Fourteenth Amendment rights. A commitment to originalism as a method of judicial constitutional interpretation challenges the premise of judicial interpretive supremacy in Section 5 jurisprudence in two ways. First, as a matter of history, an originalist reading of Section 5 provides support for broad judicial ...


The Love In Loving: Overcoming Artificial Racial Barriers, Justice Leah Ward Sears (Ret.), Sasha N. Greenberg 2018 Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

The Love In Loving: Overcoming Artificial Racial Barriers, Justice Leah Ward Sears (Ret.), Sasha N. Greenberg

Notre Dame Law Review Online

The rewritten opinion of Loving v. Virginia in Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court is in stark contrast to the original. Professor Teri McMurtry-Chubb’s judgment for the court “unmasks—and renders unavoidable— the link between America’s history of White supremacy and patriarchy and America’s legal structures for regulating marriage and families.” The feminist opinion relies almost entirely on legal, social, and cultural history, in particular the history of marriage and family relationships among and between Blacks and Whites during the colonial, antebellum, and postbellum eras in the American South.

For the authors of ...


Looking To The Litigant: Reaction Essay To Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions Of The United States Supreme Court, Claire B. Wofford 2018 College of Charleston

Looking To The Litigant: Reaction Essay To Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions Of The United States Supreme Court, Claire B. Wofford

Notre Dame Law Review Online

Feminist Judgments’s focus on jurists alone is not unusual. My own discipline has devoted a great deal of study to understanding why and how the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court make the decisions they do. Some of the scholarship has even examined whether women judges might operate differently than their male counterparts, though the findings have been mixed at best. The emphasis, moreover, is understandable and laudable, as it is jurists who have the final say on the content of law.

Emphasizing judicial behavior, however, unfortunately overlooks the fundamental passivity of the courts. As much as they ...


Extending The Critical Rereading Project, Gabrielle Appleby, Rosalind Dixon 2018 University of New South Wales Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law

Extending The Critical Rereading Project, Gabrielle Appleby, Rosalind Dixon

Notre Dame Law Review Online

In this reflection, we want to explain a project in Australia that extends the feminist judgments project and adapts it specifically for the purpose of teaching critical theory, critical legal thinking, and the assumptions inherent in the legal method.


Feminist Judgments And The Future Of Reproductive Justice, Sarah Weddington 2018 Notre Dame Law School

Feminist Judgments And The Future Of Reproductive Justice, Sarah Weddington

Notre Dame Law Review Online

Roe v. Wade is one of the twenty-five Supreme Court cases that has been rewritten from a feminist perspective by an imaginative group of law professors and lawyers. This Essay is based on remarks made by Ms. Weddington at a panel discussion held at Temple University Beasley School of Law on November 13, 2017.


Feminist Judgments & #Metoo, Margaret E. Johnson 2018 University of Baltimore School of Law

Feminist Judgments & #Metoo, Margaret E. Johnson

Notre Dame Law Review Online

The Feminist Judgments book series and the #MeToo movement share the feminist method of narrative. Feminist Judgments is a scholarly project of rewriting judicial opinions using feminist legal theory. #MeToo is a narrative movement by people, primarily women, telling their stories of sexual harassment or assault. Both Feminist Judgments and #MeToo bring to the surface stories that have been silenced, untold, or overlooked. These narrative collections can and do effectuate genderjustice change by empowering people, changing perspectives, opening up new learning, and affecting future legal and nonlegal outcomes.


Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford 2018 University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

Rewriting Judicial Opinions And The Feminist Scholarly Project, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Bridget J. Crawford

Notre Dame Law Review Online

In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor. Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes. The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very ...


Feminist Judgments And Women's Rights At Work, Gillian Thomas 2018 ACLU Women’s Rights Project

Feminist Judgments And Women's Rights At Work, Gillian Thomas

Notre Dame Law Review Online

The history of the law’s treatment of working women is largely a history of the law’s treatment of women’s bodies. Overwhelmingly created by male judges, that jurisprudence considers women from a remove—their physicality, their reproductive capacity, their stature, their sexuality—eclipsing meaningful consideration of their lived experience, on or off the job. As vividly illustrated by so many of the alternative rulings contained in Feminist Judgments, that erasure resulted in Supreme Court decisions that—even when they came out the “right” way, that is, in favor of the female litigant—squandered opportunities for advancing sex equality ...


Feminist Judgments And The Rewritten Price Waterhouse, Sandra Sperino 2018 University of Cincinnati College of Law

Feminist Judgments And The Rewritten Price Waterhouse, Sandra Sperino

Notre Dame Law Review Online

In Feminist Judgments, Professor Martha Chamallas reimagines the canonical case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that a plaintiff can prevail on a Title VII claim by showing that a protected trait was a motivating factor in a negative employment outcome. In that case, the Court noted that plaintiffs in discrimination cases should not be required to prove but-for cause to prevail.

The introduction to the Professor Chamallas concurrence correctly notes many of the rewritten opinion’s strengths. Professor Chamallas provides richer detail about the facts underlying the case and the context in which ...


Revisiting Roe To Advance Reproductive Justice For Childbearing Women, Elizabeth Kukura 2018 Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law

Revisiting Roe To Advance Reproductive Justice For Childbearing Women, Elizabeth Kukura

Notre Dame Law Review Online

The rewritten opinions that comprise Feminist Judgments together provide a powerful critique of judicial decisionmaking that renders certain women’s experiences invisible. By reimagining key Supreme Court decisions, the opinion writers unmask various ways that gendered conceptions of social roles are deeply entrenched in the rulings and reasoning of the highest court of the United States. The authors also show, through their alternative texts, that opinions which are celebrated as women’s rights victories can nevertheless impede progress toward equality and liberty.

Kimberly Mutcherson’s rewritten concurrence in Roe v. Wade illustrates the missed opportunities and unintended consequences that have ...


How Is Sex Harassment Discriminatory?, Noa Ben-Asher 2018 Pace University Elisabeth Haub School of Law

How Is Sex Harassment Discriminatory?, Noa Ben-Asher

Notre Dame Law Review Online

Feminist Judgments takes us to a key moment in the history of sexual harassment law. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also held that to be actionable under Title VII, sexual advances must be (1) “unwelcome” and (2) “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” The latter part of the test (“sufficiently severe or pervasive”) fits well into the ...


Digital Commons powered by bepress