Law Commons^™

Lest We Be Lemmings, Claire Wright

Faculty Articles

Lest We Be Lemmings concerns global warming, which is the most grave threat facing humanity today. In this article, I first: (1) discuss how the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Executive Branch, for decades, have been aware of the existence of global warming and its main cause – the burning of fossil fuels and emission of CO₂ - but have consistently failed to regulate the fossil fuel industry, reduce the lucrative subsidies that they provide to the fossil fuel industry, and hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for global warming; (2) explain how the fossil fuel industry, for decades, …

Do Seven Members Of Congress Have Article Iii Standing To Sue The Executive Branch?: Why The D.C. Circuit’S Divided Decision In Maloney V. Murphy Was Wrongly Decided In Light Of Two Prior District Court Decisions And Historical Separation Of Powers Jurisprudence, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The D.C. Circuit’s divided decision in Maloney v. Murphy granting standing to minority party members of the House Oversight Committee appears questionable in light of two prior district court decisions in Waxman and Cummings that had denied standing in similar circumstances. Most importantly, Maloney is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent regarding standing for individual members of Congress. In Raines v. Byrd, the Supreme Court held that individual members of Congress generally do not have standing to enforce institutional congressional interests such as whether a statute is constitutional, but that one or both Houses of Congress must sue as an institution. …

Baby & Bathwater: Standing In Election Cases After 2020, Steven J. Mulroy

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The current consensus among commentators is that the flood of cases challenging the 2020 presidential election results was almost completely meritless. This consensus is correct as to the ultimate result, but not as to the courts’ treatment of standing. In their (understandable) zeal to reject sometimes frivolous attempts to overturn a legitimate election and undermine public confidence in our electoral system, many courts were too quick to rule that plaintiffs lacked standing. These rulings resulted in unjustified sweeping rulings that voters were not injured even if their legal votes were diluted by states accepting illegal votes; that campaigns did not …

Between "The Rock" And A Hard Case: Application Of The Emoluments Clauses For A New Political Era, Douglas R. Hume

Pepperdine Law Review

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 rewrote some of the traditional rules for electing presidents in the United States. Does his election portend a new breed of presidential candidate, arising from the business and celebrity arena rather than traditional government service? If so, the potential for candidates with more diverse and global business interests (and the conflicts of interest that come along with them) becomes more likely. This Essay discusses the historical intent of the Emoluments Clauses and the issue of potential presidential conflicts of interest. This Essay also examines the litigation efforts filed against President Trump to force …

Executive Action And Nonaction, Tom Campbell

Tom Campbell

Standing Up For Legislators: Reevaluating Legislator Standing In The Wake Of Kerr V. Hickenlooper, William D. Gohl

Northwestern University Law Review

Hornbook constitutional law establishes that Congress and state legislatures are bodies of limited, enumerated powers, and common sense suggests they should get their act together and exercise them more often. But should legislators be permitted to sue in order to exercise their powers when another branch of government infringes on them unconstitutionally, or the body they represent unconstitutionally limits them? This Note argues that, at least in certain circumstances, they should. Following on the heels of the Tenth Circuit’s recent treatment of the issue in its Kerr v. Hickenlooper decisions, this Note proposes a redefinition of the legislator standing doctrine …

Making Sense Of Legislative Standing, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Legislative standing doctrine is neglected and under-theorized. There has always been a wide range of opinions on the Supreme Court about the proper contours of legislative standing doctrine and even about whether the Court should adjudicate disputes between the other two branches at all. Perhaps owing to these disagreements, the full Court has never articulated a clear vision of the doctrine. While the Court has managed to resolve some cases, it has not achieved the consensus necessary to provide a comprehensive and coherent account of critical doctrinal issues such as what type of injury can give rise to legislative standing …

Does A House Of Congress Have Standing Over Appropriations?: The House Of Representatives Challenges The Affordable Care Act, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In U.S. House of Representatives v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the District Court for D.C. in 2015 held that the House of Representatives has Article III standing to challenge certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act as violations of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on legislative standing is complicated. The Court has generally avoided the contentious question of whether Congress has standing to challenge certain presidential actions because of the difficult separation-of-powers concerns in such cases. In Raines v. Byrd, the Court held that individual members of Congress generally do not have Article III standing by simply holding …

Unchecked Political Question Doctrine: Judicial Ethics At The Dawn Of A Second Nuclear Arms Race, Daniel T. Rust

Daniel T Rust

This paper examines The Republic of the Marshall Islands v. The United States of America et al., the grounds for its dismissal, and recommendations for how it should be appealed and ultimately judged. The Marshall Islands sued alleging noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. At issue are concepts of legality and ethics behind the “Political Question Doctrine” defense that the United States provides, in addition to whether or not the Marshall Islands has standing. When noncompliance with a valid, legal treaty causes real harm, Political Question Doctrine should not be allowed to the …

From Commitment To Compliance: Enforceability Of Remedial Orders Of African Human Rights Bodies, Roger-Claude Liwanga

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Over the last seven decades, there has been a global proliferation of international and regional human rights tribunals. But with no coercive power to enforce their judgments, these international tribunals rely either on the good faith of the State parties or on the political process for the implementation of their remedial orders. This nonjudicial approach to enforcement has showed its limits, as most State parties are noncompliant with international judgments to the detriment of human rights victims. This article recommends a new approach involving the judicialization of the post-adjudicative stage of international proceedings as an avenue to increase the enforceability …

The Scottish Independence Referendum And The Principles Of Democratic Secession, Benjamin Levites

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

On September 18, 2014, Scottish voters decided whether to sever the 307 years of unity between Scotland and the United Kingdom in an independence referendum. While the voters ultimately rejected independence, the process by which the Scots accomplished this historic exercise will inform further democratic secession movements.

This Note examines the significant implications of Scotland’s independence referendum by assessing the history of independence referendums and the present scope of relevant international law. The formative history of the independence referendum and modern precedential examples established the requirements for democratic secession. In turn, the Scottish independence referendum, in the context of evolving …

Standing” On Formality: Hollingsworth V. Perry And The Efficacy Of Direct Democracy In The United States, Matthew A. Melone

Matthew A. Melone

No abstract provided.

Don’T Ask, Don’T Tell: Hollingsworth V. Perry And The Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage – The Court Didn’T Tell By Denying The People The Right To Ask, Matthew A. Melone, George A. Nation Iii

Matthew A. Melone

No abstract provided.

Hougang By-Election Case: What Court Decision On By-Election Reveals, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s judgment in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2013] SGCA 39 – popularly known as the Hougang by-election case – shows that the Court sees its role as policing the margins rather than involving itself in the heart of politics. The Court held that the Government was incorrect in asserting the Constitution confers on it the discretion not to hold a by-election at all after a parliamentary seat falls vacant. The judgment came as a surprise to those used to a judicial stance fairly deferential towards the Government, but on balance the Court did accord …

Hougang By-Election Case: What Court Decision On By-Election Reveals, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Jack Tsen-Ta LEE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s judgment in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2013] SGCA 39 – popularly known as the Hougang by-election case – shows that the Court sees its role as policing the margins rather than involving itself in the heart of politics. The Court held that the Government was incorrect in asserting the Constitution confers on it the discretion not to hold a by-election at all after a parliamentary seat falls vacant. The judgment came as a surprise to those used to a judicial stance fairly deferential towards the Government, but on balance the Court did accord …

Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …

Fighting Exclusion From Televised Presidential Debates: Minor-Party Candidates' Standing To Challenge Sponsoring Organizations' Tax-Exempt Status, Gregory P. Magarian

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that courts should recognize minor-party presidential candidates' standing to challenge the section 50l(c)(3) tax-exempt status of organizations sponsoring televised debates that exclude minor-party candidates. Part I situates the issue within the context of the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence and concludes that the validity of a third-party tax-status challenge by an aggrieved minor-party presidential candidate remains an open question. Part II analyzes the Second and District of Columbia Circuits' decisions and concludes that the Second Circuit's approach properly interprets the Supreme Court's standing doctrine and correctly resolves the particular arguments which both courts consider. Part III first demonstrates …