Digital Commons Network^™

The Viability Of Citizens’ Suits Under The Clean Water Act After Gwaltney Of Smithfield V. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Bevery Mcqueary Smith

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Where To Draw The Guideline: Factoring The Fruits Of Illegal Searches Into Sentencing Guidelines Calculations, Cheryl G. Bader, David S. Douglas

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Determining A Standard For Housing Discrimination Under Title Viii, Richard C. Cahn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Progressive And Conservative Constitutionalism, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

American constitutional law in general, and fourteenth amendment jurisprudence in particular, is in a state of profound transformation. The "liberal-legalist" and purportedly politically neutral understanding of constitutional guarantees that dominated constitutional law and theory during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, is waning, both in the courts and in the academy. What is beginning to replace liberal legalism in the academy, and what has clearly replaced it on the Supreme Court, is a very different conception - a new paradigm - of the role of constitutionalism, constitutional adjudication, and constitutional guarantees in a democratic state. Unlike the liberal-legal paradigm it is …

Finley V. United States: Unstringing Pendent Jurisdiction, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

The approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Finley v. United States calls into question not only pendent-claim jurisdiction but ancillary jurisdiction as well. Particularly vulnerable to attack are those uses of ancillary jurisdiction that involve the addition of new parties such as class action, intervention, and impleader. Furthermore, the opinion may lay a foundation for attacking ancillary-claim jurisdiction involving counterclaims or cross-claims. This commentary will examine Finley and the potential impact of the opinion on the various permutations of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction.

A Judicial Postscript To The Church-State Debates Of 1989: How Porous The Wall, How Civil The State?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This work is a continuation of the debate regarding the Establishment Clause. The focus lies with Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in County of Allegheny v. ACLU and how this opinion harkens back to a concept shared by Jefferson and Madison, that the establishment clause is designed to prevent government favoritism.

A Critical Approach To Section 1983 With Special Attention To Sources Of Law, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The Civil Rights Act of 1871¹ ("§ 1983") establishes a tort-like remedy for persons deprived of federally protected rights "under color of law."'² While the statute's broad language provides a remedy for violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights, the statute itself provides little or no guidance regarding important subjects such as the measure of damages, the availability of punitive damages, the requirements for equitable relief, the statute of limitations, survival of claims, proper parties, and immunities from suit.³...

...The first part of this article examines the narrowly "legal" analysis of § 1983 in the cases …

Keeping The Camel's Nose Out Of The Tent: The Constitutionality Of N.L.R.B. Jurisdiction Over Employees Of Religious Institutions, Ellyn S. Rosen

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Letting Go Of The Eleventh Amendment, Gene R. Shreve

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A ‘Non-Power’ Looks At Separation Of Powers, Alan B. Morrison, Georgetown University Law Center

Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture

On April 6, 1989, Dean, Alan B. Morrison of George Washington Law, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s ninth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: "A ‘Non-Power’ Looks at Separation of Powers."

Dean Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service at GW Law. He is responsible for creating pro bono opportunities for students, bringing a wide range of public interest programs to the law school, encouraging students to seek positions in the non-profit and government sectors, and assisting students find ways to fund their legal education to make it possible for them to pursue careers …

Interpreting An Unwritten Constitution, Ronald D. Rotunda

Law Faculty Articles and Research

No abstract provided.

Will Roe V. Wade Survive The Rehnquist Court?, Dawn E. Johnsen, Marcy Wilder

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

First Amendment And Land Use, In Recent Developments In Land Use, Planning, And Zoning, Alan C. Weinstein, Edward E. Ziegler Jr.

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the mid-1980s, the focus in this area of the law was on nuisance closures and license revocation actions affecting adult bookstores and other kinds of establishments where either obscenity or illicit sexual activities were taking place. In our last committee report focusing on the first amendment area we reported on those areas of the law in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. Since then, there has been one important Fifth Circuit decision, FW/PBS Inc. v. City of Dallas, that the Supreme Court has agreed to review, with a decision expected in 1989. There …

Section 752(C): The Other Issue In Tufts V. Commissioner, L. Scott Stafford

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Defenses Against Punitive Damages: Down But Not Out, Nicholas K. Kile

Indiana Law Journal

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 …

Possible Modifications Of Roe Vs. Wade, Charles E. Rice

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

The Early Role Of The Attorney General In Our Constitutional Scheme: In The Beginning There Was Pragmatism, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article attempts to accomplish two distinct but related objectives. First, it initiates the proposed systematic study of the Office of the Attorney General by examining its early role. Second, it explores how these early experiences help to answer today's questions. To those ends, part I examines the establishment of the Office of the Attorney General. Studying the genesis of the office and contrasting it to the other significant offices created by the First Congress, such as the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, War, and Treasury, reveals the priorities and concerns of these early legislators, many of whom had been instrumental …

Introduction (The Supreme Court & Local Government Law: The 1988-89 Term), Leon D. Lazer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Leon Lazer, George Pratt, Leon Friedman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Just Compensation And The Condemnation Of Future Interests: Empirical Evidence Of The Failure Of Fair Market Value, Laura H. Burney

Faculty Articles

Just compensation for future interests should be directly responsive to the Fifth Amendment by directly addressing its dictate rather than detouring through objective standards which stress valuation rather than fairness. It is generally inappropriate to strictly adhere to any one predetermined standard in compensating owners whose property has been taken. The reasons behind the rules that govern the compensation awarded to an owner whose property has been taken have not vanished. However, these rules are frequently forsaken. If the United States Supreme Court is taken at its word, the normative basis for providing just compensation in all takings cases should …

Resources Development On Navajo: The Dineh Power Project, Donald R. Wharton

Natural Resource Development in Indian Country (Summer Conference, June 8-10)

42 pages (includes illustrations and maps).

The Doctrine Of Inevitable Discovery: A Plea For Reasonable Limitations, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In reinstating the Iowa murder conviction of Robert Williams, the Supreme Court accepted explicitly for the first time the doctrine of inevitable discovery. Applied for some time by state and federal courts, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is a means by which evidence obtained illegally can still be admitted against defendants in criminal cases. Unfortunately, the Court chose to adopt the doctrine without any of the safeguards necessary to insure that the deterrent impact of the exclusionary rule would be preserved, and in a form that is subject to and almost invites abuse.

This article warns of the danger to …

Ginzburg V. United States : A Chapter In The Supreme Court's Evolving Obscenity Standard, Dennis R. Ainger

Honors Capstones

Heard by the Supreme Court in late 1965, Ginzburg v. United States has invited the Court to continue its attempts to define and clarify the limits of the First Amendment protection of materials dealing with sex, specifically the federal statute prohibiting "obscene" materials from the U.S. mails. Although the Court had previous decided in Roth v. U.S. that obscenity was not protected by the Constitution, doubts abounded about the precise definition of "obscenity." The Ginzburg standard was an attempt to solve this problem by adopting what legal experts have called "variable" obscenity, an approach to defining obscenity according to the …

The Evolving Concept Of Preemption Removal: An Expansion Of Federal Jurisdiction., Scott Roberts

St. Mary's Law Journal

Federal jurisdiction based on preemption removal should extend to federal laws which meet the requirements of Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Taylor. The well-pleaded complaint rule restricts federal removal jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for federal jurisdiction to attach. Therefore, the defendant’s right to a federal forum depends upon whether the plaintiff chooses to invoke a federal claim in its complaint. Courts routinely criticize the linking of removal jurisdiction to the well-pleaded complaint rule for giving plaintiffs incentive to …

Taking The Framers Seriously, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Taking the Constitution Seriously by Walter Berns (1987).

This review focuses on three of the key historical points that Walter Berns makes: his arguments that the Declaration of Independence is a Lockean document; that the Constitution encapsulates the political philosophy of the Declaration; and that the framers viewed the commercialization of society as a salutary development and were unambivalent champions of the right to property. Examination of these issues suggests that the ideological universe of the framers was far more complex than Berns indicates. While the revolutionary era witnessed a new concern with individual rights and a …

Marriage, Procreation, And The Prisoner: Should Reproductive Alternatives Survive During Incarceration?, Jacqueline B. Deoliveira

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction By Necessity: Examining One Proposal For Unbarring The Doors Of Our Courts, Tracy L. Troutman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Although the usually proclaimed goals of the United States legal system are "fair play and justice," a person who is injured in some way, who feels that he has had his rights violated, or who seeks to enforce a business agreement, may not necessarily have a remedy in its judicial system. Often a court may claim it lacks power to hear a case because it does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the suit. Another motive of a court for refusing to hear the case may be simply the necessity to clear its docket. One …

Stare Decisis And Constitutional Adjudication, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Despite endless literature urging that constitutional adjudication be severed from explorations into the understandings at the creation of the Constitution, original understanding continues to play a prominent role in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. For the Court, originalism seemingly provides a legitimate ground for decisionmaking; for the people, it provides assurances against judicial usurpation of power properly belonging to other branches of government, or retained by the people themselves.

But difficulties with originalism emerge once the existing constitutional order is actually examined. The Supreme Court's repeated invocations of the Framers' understanding notwithstanding, a significant portion of our constitutional order cannot reasonably …

A Return To Fourth Amendment Basics: Undoing The Mischief Of Camara And Terry, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.