Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Duke Law (6)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (5)
- Boston University School of Law (3)
- Singapore Management University (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
-
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Nova Southeastern University (1)
- SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (1)
- Southern Methodist University (1)
- The University of Akron (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (1)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (1)
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 31 - 35 of 35
Full-Text Articles in Law
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a doctrinal level, …
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Articles
In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a …
A Structuralist Approach To The Two State Action Doctrines, Justin Desautels-Stein
A Structuralist Approach To The Two State Action Doctrines, Justin Desautels-Stein
Publications
By all accounts, the constitutional and antitrust state-action doctrines are strangers. Courts and scholars see the constitutional state-action doctrine as about the applicability of constitutional rights in private disputes, and the antitrust state-action doctrine as a judicial negotiation between the scope of the Sherman Act and the demands of federalism. In this conventional view, the only thing the doctrines share in common is that they are both an awful mess. This Article challenges the conventional wisdom and argues that the two state-action doctrines are fundamentally connected, and when viewed in a certain light, not even that messy. It is not …
Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter
Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Windsor has puzzled commentators, who have tended to overlook or dismiss its ultimate conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it arose from animus. What we have in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is Windsor Products — an outpouring of decades of constitutional development whose fountainhead is Carolene Products and whose tributaries are the gay-rights and federalism streams. This paper presents the constitutional anti-animus principle, including what constitutes animus, why it offends the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court determines it is present. The paper also discusses why the Court was …
The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene
The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
The argument that eventually persuaded five members of the Supreme Court to conclude that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is one most observers originally considered frivolous. In that respect, it is similar to another potential argument against the mandate — that forcing someone to pay for insurance violates the liberty interests guaranteed by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The Commerce Clause argument was the centerpiece of the challenge to the mandate; the due process argument was not meaningfully advanced at all. This chapter suggests reasons why.