Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- A.D.A. (1)
- Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- Article III (1)
- Article i (1)
-
- Circuit split (1)
- Civil rights testers (1)
- Congress (1)
- Congruence and proportionality (1)
- Direct appeal (1)
- Diversity (1)
- Eleventh Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Inc. v. Robins (1)
- Injury in fact (1)
- Judicial reform (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Shadow docket (1)
- Spokeo (1)
- Standing (1)
- Stephen Vladeck (1)
- Three-judge district court (1)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Eleventh Amendment And Nondiverse Suits Against States, Collin Hong
The Eleventh Amendment And Nondiverse Suits Against States, Collin Hong
University of Cincinnati Law Review
Since Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court has maintained that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from suits by plaintiffs who are citizens of other states and by citizens of that state, despite the text of the Eleventh Amendment specifying that only suits from citizens of other states are barred. Scholars have noted that what therefore protects the states from suits against their own citizens is not the Eleventh Amendment, but rather a common-law immunity that existed between nations at the founding. That immunity applied both to states and to foreign nations. This article argues that just as Congress has …
Did The Supreme Court In Transunion V. Ramirez Transform The Article Iii Standing Injury In Fact Test?: The Circuit Split Over Ada Tester Standing And Broader Theoretical Considerations, Bradford Mank
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and especially the Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for limiting Congress’ authority to confer standing by statute. For example, in his article, Injury in Fact Transformed, Professor Cass Sunstein argues that TransUnion is a “radical ruling” that uses the injury in fact standing requirement to limit the authority of Congress to enact only statutes that address harms that have a close relationship to traditional or common law harms. By contrast, Professor Ernst Young argues that the Supreme Court’s injury in fact doctrine is …
Three-Judge District Courts, Direct Appeals, And Reforming The Supreme Court’S Shadow Docket, Michael E. Solimine
Three-Judge District Courts, Direct Appeals, And Reforming The Supreme Court’S Shadow Docket, Michael E. Solimine
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
The “shadow docket” is the term recently given to a long-standing practice of the United States Supreme Court, in granting or denying requests for stays of lower court decisions, often on a hurried basis with rudimentary briefing and no oral argument, and with little if any explanation by the Court or individual Justices. Recently the practice has received unusual attention inside and outside the legal community, because of its seemingly greater use by the Court in high-profile cases, with the emergency orders sought by the federal government or state officials. Scholars have advanced various reforms to ameliorate the perceived problems …