Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

First Amendment

Columbia Law School

Constitutional adjudication

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The End Of New York Times V Sullivan: Reflections On Masson V New Yorker Magazine, Lee C. Bollinger Jan 1992

The End Of New York Times V Sullivan: Reflections On Masson V New Yorker Magazine, Lee C. Bollinger

Faculty Scholarship

Virtually every year since New York Times v Sullivan, the Supreme Court has decided at least one or two First Amendment cases involving the press. This now seemingly permanent, annual pageant of media cases undoubtedly has significance for the development of both constitutional law and the character of American journalism, though oddly that significance has been little explored in the scholarly literature. This past year the Court had two cases, both of which received an unusual amount of discussion within the press. It is, of course, understandable, even if not wholly defensible, for the press to give disproportionate coverage …


Constitutional Law As Moral Philosophy, Gerard E. Lynch Jan 1984

Constitutional Law As Moral Philosophy, Gerard E. Lynch

Faculty Scholarship

The seemingly inexhaustible debate over the proper role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication concerns an issue of enormous practical importance: whether the Court has or should have the power to overturn the decision of a democratically elected legislature to, say, prohibit abortions, affects not only the allocation of significant political power, but also the moral lives and indeed the very bodies of millions of citizens. For this reason, many contributions to that debate, from academics as well as from practicing politicians, have burned with the passion of political commitment, seeking to influence events directly by persuading judges (or …


Third Party Standing, Henry Paul Monaghan Jan 1984

Third Party Standing, Henry Paul Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Traditional constitutional theory posits a narrow conception of the issues that a litigant properly may assert. A litigant may invoke only his own constitutional rights or immunities; he may challenge a statute only in the terms in which it is applied to him; and, in the application process, courts have broad power to construe the relevant statutory language so as to avoid constitutional difficulties. The Yazoo case is perhaps the best known example of judicial adherence to these canons. There, a railroad claimed that a statute mandating speedy settlement of "all claims for lost or damaged freight" contravened the fourteenth …