Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Remedial Discretion In Constitutional Adjudication, John M. Greabe
Remedial Discretion In Constitutional Adjudication, John M. Greabe
John M Greabe
Courts frequently withhold remedies for meritorious assertions of constitutional right. The practice is often unobjectionable. Indeed, it is a systemic necessity if constitutional law is to remain vibrant. Without it, judges surely would be less inclined to engage in constitutional innovation. But just as surely, the practice is not available for all types of constitutional claim. For instance, the subject of a criminal indictment is always entitled to dismissal of the charges if the statute authorizing the prosecution is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has experimented with various approaches to withholding constitutional remedies. The Warren Court embraced the practice of issuing …
Objecting At The Altar: Why The Herring Good Faith Principle And The Harlow Qualified Immunity Doctrine Should Not Be Married, John M. Greabe
Objecting At The Altar: Why The Herring Good Faith Principle And The Harlow Qualified Immunity Doctrine Should Not Be Married, John M. Greabe
John M Greabe
Response to: Jennifer E. Laurin, Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011)
Critics of the curtailment of the exclusionary rule worked by Herring v. United States have denounced the decision as Supreme Court activism posing as derivation from settled law. Professor Jennifer Laurin agrees that Herring breaks with exclusionary rule doctrine but disputes that it lacks any grounding in Court precedent. She says that Herring consummates a long courtship between the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and the Harlow standard for qualified immunity. Laurin premises her argument on an …