Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose
Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose
Faculty Scholarship
The role of the judiciary, Chief Justice Marshall famously advised, is “to say what the law is.” Yet, how often do the justices issue a written opinion that ordinary Americans can understand? The Supreme Court increasingly issues lengthy and complex opinions, often containing multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. These opinions can be as confusing as they are verbose.
“To Say What the Law Is Succinctly: A Brief Proposal,” analyzes the justices’ legal writing. Are the justices effective in saying what the law is? Insufficient attention has been devoted to evaluating the justices’ writing and their efficacy at communicating the law. …
Chevron Is A Rorschach Test Ink Blot, Jack M. Beermann
Chevron Is A Rorschach Test Ink Blot, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
I agree with Alan Morrison that, in some circumstances, courts should defer to legal determinations made by administrative agencies. I disagree, however, with Alan’s view that Chevron provides a suitable framework for such deference. It really boils down to my disagreement with the first sentence of Alan’s article: “In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously adopted an approach to interpreting federal statutes under which the courts are required to give substantial deference to the interpretations by the administrative agencies that enforce them.”1 In fact, the Supreme Court adopted nothing in Chevron related to …
The Supreme Court's Narrow View On Civil Rights, Jack M. Beermann
The Supreme Court's Narrow View On Civil Rights, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The right to choose abortion, although recently significantly curtailed from its original scope,' is a federally protected liberty interest of women, and is at least protected against the imposition of "undue burdens" by state and local government.2 Some of the most serious threats to women's ability to choose abortion have come not from government regulation, but from private, national, organized efforts to prevent abortions. In addition to seeking change through the political system, some of these organizations, most notably Operation Rescue, have focused on the providers of abortion, and have attempted to prevent abortions by forcibly closing abortion clinics …
A Critical Approach To Section 1983 With Special Attention To Sources Of Law, Jack M. Beermann
A Critical Approach To Section 1983 With Special Attention To Sources Of Law, Jack M. Beermann
Faculty Scholarship
The Civil Rights Act of 18711 ("§ 1983") establishes a tort-like remedy for persons deprived of federally protected rights "under color of law."'2 While the statute's broad language provides a remedy for violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights, the statute itself provides little or no guidance regarding important subjects such as the measure of damages, the availability of punitive damages, the requirements for equitable relief, the statute of limitations, survival of claims, proper parties, and immunities from suit.3...
...The first part of this article examines the narrowly "legal" analysis of § 1983 in the cases …