Law Commons^™

Just-Right Government: Interstate Compacts And Multistate Governance In An Era Of Political Polarization, Policy Paralysis, And Bad-Faith Partisanship, Jon Michaels, Emme M. Tyler

Indiana Law Journal

Those committed to addressing the political, economic, and moral crises of the day— voting rights, racial justice, reproductive autonomy, gaping inequality, LGBTQ rights, and public health and safety—don’t know where to turn. Federal legislative and regulatory pathways are choked off by senators quick to filibuster and by judges eager to strike down agency rules and orders. State pathways, in turn, are compromised by limited capacity, collective action problems, externalities, scant economies of scale, and—in many jurisdictions—a toxic political culture hostile to even the most anodyne government interventions. Recognizing the limited options available on a binary (that is, federal or state) …

Just Choices? Judicial Selection, Ideology, And Partisanship In The Ohio Supreme Court, Margo D'Agostino

Undergraduate Honors Thesis Projects

This thesis joins the conversation on judicial selection and impacts on judicial ideology. This is a multifaceted question that engages with the history of judicial selection, differences between states, growing polarization and partisanship, and an influx in campaign spending that can all influence Justices’ behavior while on the bench. While other theorists have used more quantitative or statistical analytics, more research is still needed on the nuanced and qualitative questions surrounding the judiciary in the United States, especially on the state level. I look at three Ohio Supreme Court Justices—Maureen O’Connor, Jennifer Brunner, and Sharon Kennedy—and decisions they have penned …

6th Annual Stonewall Lecture 2-2-2023, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …