Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman
Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman
Indiana Law Journal
Every appellate decision typically begins with the standard of appellate review. The Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in selecting the standard of appellate review for particular issues, frequently granting certiorari in order to decide whether de novo or deferential review governs certain trial court rulings. This Article critiques the Court's framework for making this choice and questions the desirability of assigning distinct standards of appellate review on an issue-by-issue basis. Rather, the core functions of appellate courts are better served by a single template for review that dispenses with the recurring uncertainty over which standard governs which trial court …
The Kavanaugh Court And The Schechter-To-Chevron Spectrum: How The New Supreme Court Will Make The Administrative State More Democratically Accountable, Justin Walker
Indiana Law Journal
In a typical year, Congress passes roughly 800 pages of law—that’s about a seveninch
stack of paper. But in the same year, federal administrative agencies promulgate
80,000 pages of regulations—which makes an eleven-foot paper pillar. This move
toward electorally unaccountable administrators deciding federal policy began in
1935, accelerated in the 1940s, and has peaked in the recent decades. Rather than
elected representatives, unelected bureaucrats increasingly make the vast majority
of the nation’s laws—a trend facilitated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in three
areas: delegation, deference, and independence.
This trend is about to be reversed. In the coming years, Congress will …
First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay
First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay
Indiana Law Journal
What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …