Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federalism (4)
- Supreme Court (3)
- Year in review (3)
- Anthony Kennedy (2)
- Chief Justice (2)
-
- Death penalty (2)
- John G. Roberts (2)
- Pragmatism (2)
- Samuel Alito (2)
- State and local government (2)
- 1331 Jurisdiction (1)
- 5-4 Margin (1)
- Abortion (1)
- Affirmative Action (1)
- Anti-commandeering (1)
- Awards (1)
- Bankruptcy (1)
- Bush Administration (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Consensus (1)
- Conservative justices (1)
- Court (1)
- Damages (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Employment (1)
- Environmental (1)
- Equal Protection (1)
- Equal Sovereignty (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …
Seila Law As Separation-Of-Powers Posturing, Edward Cantu
Seila Law As Separation-Of-Powers Posturing, Edward Cantu
Faculty Works
The Court rarely decides separation-of-powers cases, and when it does, academics usually scramble to fit such decisions into a broader doctrinal narrative. Such was the case when in June of 2020 the Supreme Court decided Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In short, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for Congress to restrict the President’s removal power of an agency head if that agency is headed by a single person. For some reason, the Court concluded that such removal restrictions are permissible when applied to multi-headed agencies but not single-headed agencies. This Article argues that an attempt …
Institutional Competence And Civil Rules Interpretation, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
Institutional Competence And Civil Rules Interpretation, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski
Faculty Works
No abstract provided.
The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu
The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu
Faculty Works
For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts — which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment — represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.
After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” …
The Separation-Of-Powers And The Least Dangerous Branch, Edward Cantu
The Separation-Of-Powers And The Least Dangerous Branch, Edward Cantu
Faculty Works
A snapshot of controversies currently surrounding the President highlights a sobering, even if acceptable, reality: we live in an age of extremely amplified president power. From the executive use of military force with little or no congressional approval, to the use of executive orders to effectively make federal policy without congressional involvement, virtually all of these controversies have a common source: the Court’s relegation of enforcement of the separation-of-powers to the political process.
This Article provides an account of this relegation. It argues that all of the Court’s separation-of-powers decisions — even those seeming to strictly enforce the boundaries of …
Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy, And The Virtues Of The Middle Ground, Allen K. Rostron
Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy, And The Virtues Of The Middle Ground, Allen K. Rostron
Faculty Works
When the Supreme Court hears arguments this fall about the constitutionality of affirmative action policies at the University of Texas, attention will be focused once again on Justice Anthony Kennedy. With the rest of the Court split between a bloc of four reliably liberal jurists and an equally solid cadre of four conservatives, the spotlight regularly falls on Kennedy, the swing voter that each side in every closely divided and ideologically charged case desperately hopes to attract. Critics condemn Kennedy for having an unprincipled, capricious, and self-aggrandizing style of decision-making. Though he is often decisive in the sense of casting …
Supreme Court Report 2007-2008, Julie M. Cheslik, Aimee L. Morrison, Tyler J. Scott
Supreme Court Report 2007-2008, Julie M. Cheslik, Aimee L. Morrison, Tyler J. Scott
Faculty Works
This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2007-2008 Term that are of particular relevance to state and local governments including those involving voting and elections, speech, class-of-one equal protection claims, immunity, taxation, preemption, and the Fourth and Sixth Amendments.
Against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, and an economy plagued by recession and federal bailouts of the finance and mortgage industries, the Court continued in a largely conservative vein, reflecting the policies and predilections of the majority of justices. The Court reasserted its distaste for unfettered …
Supreme Court Report 2006-2007: Closing Of The Courthouse Doors?, Julie M. Cheslik, Andrea Mcmurty, Kristin Underwood
Supreme Court Report 2006-2007: Closing Of The Courthouse Doors?, Julie M. Cheslik, Andrea Mcmurty, Kristin Underwood
Faculty Works
This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2006-2007 term focusing on decisions of particular relevance to state and local government. In reviewing those decisions, we focus on the shifts in the Court over time on those issues.
The expectation that the Supreme Court would shift to the right came to fruition in the 2006-07 term by the sheer lack of clear decisions on the merits. Time and again, the Court decided cases on the standing issue, never reaching the merits and frustrating litigants and citizens attempts to define their rights. Yale law professor Judith Resnick …
The Supreme Court Report 2005-06, Julie M. Cheslik, Jamie Landes, Leah Pollema, Michael Shelton
The Supreme Court Report 2005-06, Julie M. Cheslik, Jamie Landes, Leah Pollema, Michael Shelton
Faculty Works
This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2005-2006 term focusing on decisions of particular relevance to state and local government. The Court's 2005-06 Term began with much speculation as one, then a second new Justice joined the Court. After the close of the 2004-05 Term, the Court suffered the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who succumbed to the thyroid cancer that had plagued him during that Term. President Bush ultimately replaced him with Judge John G. Roberts, who began the new Term and authored his fi rst opinion, the traditional 9-0 opinion of a …
The Supreme Court Report 2004-05: The End Of The Rehnquist Era, Julie M. Cheslik
The Supreme Court Report 2004-05: The End Of The Rehnquist Era, Julie M. Cheslik
Faculty Works
No abstract provided.
Strict Constructionism And The Strike Zone, Douglas O. Linder
Strict Constructionism And The Strike Zone, Douglas O. Linder
Faculty Works
No abstract provided.