Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Liberty And Separation Of Powers In Judicial Review Of Privatized Governance Regimes, Jeffrey Kleeger
Liberty And Separation Of Powers In Judicial Review Of Privatized Governance Regimes, Jeffrey Kleeger
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
This article examines the power difference between homeowner association (HOA) owners, members, and their governing boards. Administrative adjudication can remedy the imbalance to better secure member rights. What is necessary is a heightened standard of judicial review and a requirement to produce a comprehensive record for review. Boards enjoy an advantage in disputes with members—courts uphold board actions unless they are arbitrary and capricious. Boards also possess largely unrestricted state-delegated authority to make and enforce rules, as well as decide penalties for infractions. These clearly governmental functions are not restrained by the state action doctrine. Tools of administrative adjudication are …
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Pepperdine Law Review
The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
Pepperdine Law Review
Lower courts face a dilemma when forced to choose between older Supreme Court precedent that directly controls the present legal dispute and an intervening Supreme Court ruling that relies on rationale which erodes or undermines the rationale of the direct precedent. Nearly thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced a rule requiring lower courts to follow the older precedent and disregard any inconsistency resulting from intervening rulings, effectively barring lower courts from “under-ruling” the older Supreme Court precedent. This prohibition on “under-ruling,” here referred to as the “Agostini Rule,” reflects a departure from the core rule-of-law values requiring similar cases …
Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.