Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Vanderbilt Law Review
In the debate over how federal courts should interpret federal statutes, "faithful agent" theories stand pitted against "dynamic" theories of statutory interpretation. The following questions lie at the heart of the debate: Is the proper role of federal courts to strive to implement the commands of the legislature-in other words, to act as Congress's faithful agents? Or, is the proper role of federal courts to act as partners with Congress in the forward-looking making of federal law-in other words, to interpret statutes dynamically? Proponents of faithful agent theories include both "textualists" and "purposivists." Textualists have argued that federal courts best …
Five Views Of Federalism: "Converse-1983" In Context, Akhil R. Amar
Five Views Of Federalism: "Converse-1983" In Context, Akhil R. Amar
Vanderbilt Law Review
In 1987, I published an overly long article in the Yale Law Journal entitled Of Sovereignty and Federalism. In it, I advanced a "converse-1983" model of federalism-a model that highlighted the ways in which state laws can provide remedies when federal officials violate federal constitutional rights. For example, prior to the 1971 landmark of Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by federal officers had no clear federal cause of action; but state trespass law often provided a remedy, and enabled citizens to recover when their "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" had been …
The Abstention Doctrine: A Problem Of Federalism, Joyce Britt
The Abstention Doctrine: A Problem Of Federalism, Joyce Britt
Vanderbilt Law Review
Equitable abstention refers to the deference a federal court will give a state tribunal to determine the rights of the litigants, even though technically, a federal court could entertain the action, whether by means of diversity of citizenship or because of a federal issue involved. Because of comity, or convenience, or a sense of balance in the federal system, or better handling of the problem, or some other reason of policy, federal courts at times have required a litigant to proceed in the state courts before invoking federal court jurisdiction. How this doctrine arose, its extensions and limitations form the …