Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (9)
- Inc. (2)
- Appeals (1)
- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories (1)
- Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals (1)
-
- CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (1)
- Congressional Committees (1)
- Congressional Hearings (1)
- Courts (1)
- Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds (1)
- Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper (1)
- Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (1)
- Federal Jurisdiction (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (1)
- Golan v. Holder (1)
- Greene v. Fisher (1)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (1)
- Howes v. Fields (1)
- Judicial Discretion (1)
- Judicial Process (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. Co. (1)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union (1)
- LLC (1)
- Legal Authorities (1)
- Local 1000 (1)
- Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins
Popular Media
For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …
Section 1: Moot Court: United States V. Jones, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court: United States V. Jones, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: Structure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Structure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Business, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 3: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Criminal, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove
The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …
Party Polarization And Congressional Committee Consideration Of Constitutional Questions, Neal Devins
Party Polarization And Congressional Committee Consideration Of Constitutional Questions, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Catching The Wave: State Supreme Court Outreach Efforts, Rebecca Green
Catching The Wave: State Supreme Court Outreach Efforts, Rebecca Green
Faculty Publications
State supreme courts have begun to grasp the many ways technology can connect the public with courts. This article will review some of the main trends in state supreme courts’ use of the Internet to educate the public about their work.