Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States. Supreme Court (2)
- Actions & defenses (Law) (1)
- And dismissals (1)
- Antiquities Act of 1906 (United States) (1)
- Bucklew v. Precythe (1)
-
- Capital punishment (1)
- Cities & towns (1)
- Citizen suits (civil procedure) (1)
- Confederate monuments (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Courts of Last Resort (1)
- Eighth Amendment protections (United States Constitution) (1)
- Excessive fines (Constitutional law) (1)
- Fines (Penalties) (1)
- Imprisonment (1)
- Judges--Appointments (1)
- Lethal injection (Execution) (1)
- Monuments-- Law & legislation (1)
- National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (United States) (1)
- Nongovernmental organizations (1)
- Political participation (1)
- Politicians (1)
- Prison privatization (1)
- Resignations (1)
- State Courts (1)
- State laws (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- United States. Constitution (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Paying For The Privilege Of Punishment: Reinterpreting Excessive Fines Clause Doctrine To Allow State Prisoners To Seek Relief From Pay-To-Stay Fees, Kristen M. Haight
Paying For The Privilege Of Punishment: Reinterpreting Excessive Fines Clause Doctrine To Allow State Prisoners To Seek Relief From Pay-To-Stay Fees, Kristen M. Haight
William & Mary Law Review
Across the country, the criminal justice system is becoming both more private and more expensive. Some prison systems have come to rely on private contractors for electronic monitoring, probation, pretrial services, and incarceration services. At the same time, criminal justice fees are exploding, including fees charged to inmates for their “room and board” while in prison. These fees, sometimes called “pay-to-stay,” are imposed at the state and county level, and how they are applied varies widely. Some take into account inmates’ ability to pay the fees, or the effect on their families. Some do not. Some only apply to prisoners …
Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger
Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger
William & Mary Law Review
The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court’s great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts’ deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court’s conservative Justices have blamed this development on “anti-death penalty activists” waging “guerilla war” on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by a range of …
We Are All Growing Old Together: Making Sense Of America's Monument-Protection Laws, Zachary Bray
We Are All Growing Old Together: Making Sense Of America's Monument-Protection Laws, Zachary Bray
William & Mary Law Review
Monuments and the laws that protect them divide Americans today as never before. American attitudes toward monuments have always been a blend of affection, insecurity, and suspicion. But Americans are now more invested in the built and natural monuments that surround us: to be for, or against, protecting certain monuments has now become a shorthand for one’s stance on a host of cultural and political issues. These changing attitudes have thrown American monument-protection laws into sharp relief. And many local, state, and federal legislators and executive officials have taken advantage of this opportunity to exploit America’s patchwork of monument-protection laws, …
Associations And Cities As (Forbidden) Pure Private Attorneys General, Heather Elliott
Associations And Cities As (Forbidden) Pure Private Attorneys General, Heather Elliott
William & Mary Law Review
The Supreme Court interprets Article III’s case-or-controversy language to require a plaintiff to show injury in fact, causation, and redressability. A plaintiff who meets that tripartite test has standing to sue and thus a personal stake in pursuing the litigation. Accordingly, in Sierra Club v. Morton, the Supreme Court prohibited pure private attorneys general: litigants who would sue without the requisite personal stake. This limitation extends to organizations. They, too, must show standing on their own account or, under Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, identify a member with Article III standing and show how the lawsuit is germane to …
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy
William & Mary Law Review
When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …