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

Law Commons™

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

Litigation

Bivens

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker Dec 2020

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker

Scholarly Articles

This case illustrates how the First Amendment functions as an essential backstop to Fourth Amendment freedoms—and vice versa. As revealed by the national response to the killing of George Floyd and so many similar injustices, the ability to record encounters with government representatives is critical to preserving civil rights, and especially the right to avoid excessive force. The public only “became aware of the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death because citizens standing on a sidewalk exercised their First Amendment rights and filmed a police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck until he died.” Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., …

Go to article

Wrongful Death Actions Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Steven Steinglass, Richard Emery, Ilann Margalit Maazel Oct 2015

Wrongful Death Actions Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Steven Steinglass, Richard Emery, Ilann Margalit Maazel

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz Jun 2014

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Go to article

In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis Feb 2013

In Defense Of Implied Injunctive Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis

John F. Preis

If Congress has neither authorized nor prohibited a suit to enforce the Constitution, may the federal courts create one nonetheless? At present, the answer mostly turns on the form of relief sought: if the plaintiff seeks damages, the Supreme Court will normally refuse relief unless Congress has specifically authorized it; in contrast, if the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the Court will refuse relief only if Congress has specifi- cally barred it. These contradictory approaches naturally invite arguments for reform. Two common arguments—one based on the historical relationship between law and equity and the other based on separation of powers principles—could …

Go to article

The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander Jan 2009

The Story Of Bivens V. Six Unknown-Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

In Bivens v. Six Unknown-Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an individual to sue federal government officials for a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing on interviews with some of the participants, including Webster Bivens himself and one of the agents who conducted the search, this chapter in the forthcoming book Federal Courts' Stories describes the events that led to the litigation and the complex array of factors that informed the Court's approach to the case. After placing the Bivens decision in context, the chapter evaluates the competing narratives that have grown …

Go to article

Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis Jan 2009

Rethinking Bivens: Legitimacy And Constitutional Adjudication, James E. Pfander, David Baltmanis

Faculty Working Papers

The Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics provides an uncertain framework for the enforcement of constitutional rights against the federal government. Rather than recognizing a federal common law right of action for use in every case, the Court views itself as devising actions on a case-by-case basis in light of a range of factors. Critics on all sides question the Court's approach, doubting either its power to fashion federal common law or the tendency of its case-by-case analysis to create gaps in constitutional enforcement. Particularly when compared with actions under …

Go to article

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz Jan 2007

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Wrongful Death Actions Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Steven Steinglass, Richard Emery, Ilann Margalit Maazel Jan 2003

Wrongful Death Actions Under Section 1983, Martin A. Schwartz, Steven Steinglass, Richard Emery, Ilann Margalit Maazel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine In The Supreme Court: Judicial Activism And The Restriction Of Constitutional Rights, David Rudovsky Jan 1989

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine In The Supreme Court: Judicial Activism And The Restriction Of Constitutional Rights, David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Go to article