Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Does Qualified Immunity Matter?, Alexander A. Reinert
Does Qualified Immunity Matter?, Alexander A. Reinert
Articles
In litigation brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), most commentators agree that qualified immunity plays a substantial role in limiting plaintiffs' ability to recover compensation. Many find this tradeoff acceptable, in part because of concerns of fairness to government official defendants and in part because courts may still play a central role in announcing the law without worrying over the retroactive effect their decision will have on the personal funds of the defendant official.
This paper considers the different role that qualified immunity may play in …
Brief For Evidence And Criminal Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Alexander A. Reinert
Brief For Evidence And Criminal Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Alexander A. Reinert
Amicus Briefs
Amici are scholars who teach and write about criminal law, criminal procedure, and evidence. We file this brief to address the relationship between rules of admissibility for psychiatric testimony and Eighth Amendment standards for procedure in capital trials. The decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals paid little attention to this relationship, but in so doing it ignored much of this Court’s important capital punishment jurisprudence. Amici write to emphasize that the Eighth Amendment’s emphasis on reliability and accuracy in capital trials has ramifications for the admissibility of expert testimony.
Our scholarly interest in this issue arises from teaching …
Chevron'S Regrets: The Persistent Vitality Of The Nondelegation Doctrine, Michael C. Pollack
Chevron'S Regrets: The Persistent Vitality Of The Nondelegation Doctrine, Michael C. Pollack
Articles
Since the Chevron decision in 1984, courts have extended to administrative agencies a high level of deference when those agencies reasonably interpret ambiguous statutes, reasoning that agencies have more technical expertise and public accountability than courts. However, when the agency’s interpretation implicates a significant policy choice, courts do not always defer. At times, they rely on principles of nondelegation to rule against the agency interpretation and require that choices be made by Congress instead.
Chevron makes no explicit exception for significant policy choices, but in cases like MCI v. AT&T and FDA v. Brown & Williamson, the Supreme Court …