Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States
University of Michigan Law School
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Advertising (1)
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom PAC v. Bennett (1)
- Board of Immigration Appeals (1)
- Broadcasting (1)
-
- Campaign finance (1)
- Candidates (1)
- Circuit courts (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
- Congress (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Costs (1)
- Crimes (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Deportation (1)
- District courts (1)
- Drugs (1)
- Elections (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal question jurisdiction (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Funding (1)
- Juciary Act (1)
- Law reform (1)
- McCullion-Floeter test (1)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder (1)
- Narcotics (1)
- Permanent residents (1)
- Police (1)
- Preemption (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson
When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …
In All Fairness: Using Political Broadcast Access Doctrine To Tailor Public Campaign Fund Matching, Andrew V. Moshirnia, Aaron T. Dozeman
In All Fairness: Using Political Broadcast Access Doctrine To Tailor Public Campaign Fund Matching, Andrew V. Moshirnia, Aaron T. Dozeman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have undermined the viability of campaign public financing systems, a vital tool for fighting political corruption. First, Citizens United v. FEC allowed privately financed candidates and independent groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigning. Publicly financed candidates now risk being vastly outspent. Second, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett invalidated a proportional fund matching system whereby privately financed candidates’ or independent groups’ spending triggered funds to publicly funded candidates. These decisions effectuate a libertarian speech doctrine: all speakers, individual or corporate, must be absolutely unburdened. To comply with this approach, …
Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson
Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not remove a long-term lawful permanent resident from the United States based on a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The decision clarified the meaning of an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removal, an important question under the U.S. immigration laws. In the removal proceedings, Adrian Moncrieffe, a black immigrant from Jamaica, did not challenge his arrest and drug conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not review the facts surrounding, or the lawfulness of, the criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the traffic …