Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The institutionalist branch of "Law and Courts" studies how judges incorporate institutional constraints into their decision-making processes. Congressional constraints on judicial review, as the literature currently stands, fall into one of two general classes: overrides and Court-curbing measures. This taxonomy, however, is incomplete. Neither overrides nor curbing measures are needed to explain the not uncommon situation where a policy-oriented Justice deviates from a preferred vote based on the belief that such a vote will prompt Congress to alter an "insulated base rule" in a way that disrupts the Justice's larger policy agenda. An "insulated base rule" is a Congressional policy …
Free Speech Federalism, Adam Winkler
Free Speech Federalism, Adam Winkler
Michigan Law Review
For decades, constitutional doctrine has held that the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech applies equally to laws adopted by the federal, state, and local governments. Nevertheless, the identity of the government actor behind a law may be a significant, if unrecognized, factor in free speech cases. This Article reports the results of a comprehensive study of core free speech cases decided by the federal courts over a 14-year period. The study finds that speech-restrictive laws adopted by the federal government are far more likely to be upheld than similar laws adopted by state and local governments. Courts applying strict …
The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack
The Reviewability Of The President's Statutory Powers, Kevin M. Stack
Vanderbilt Law Review
From the Supreme Court's earliest days, it has reviewed some, but not all, challenges to the President's claims that a statute authorized his action. Not surprisingly, the Court's decisions granting review of the President's assertions of statutory powers have garnered more attention than its denials of review. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison1 and Little v. Barreme,2 gaining momentum in the twentieth century with the extensive discussion of statutory authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer3 and Dames & Moore v. Regan,4 and accelerating in recent years with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,5 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,6 and Medellin v. Texas,7 the …
The Supreme Court Of Canada, Charter Dialogue, And Deference, Rosalind Dixon
The Supreme Court Of Canada, Charter Dialogue, And Deference, Rosalind Dixon
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
For those concerned about the democratic legitimacy of Charter review by Canadian courts, the idea of dialogue offers a promising middle path between the extremes of judicial and legislative supremacy. Current dialogue theory, however, largely fails to live up to this promise of compromise. Instead of distinguishing democratic worries associated with US style, strong-form judicial review, it largely endorses the legitimacy of such review. For dialogue to live up to its original promise, a new theory that more clearly distinguishes Canada from the United States is required. This article offers a new theory of dialogue in which the willingness of …
A Tale Of Two Maps: The Limits Of Universalism In Comparative Judicial Review, Adam M. Dodek
A Tale Of Two Maps: The Limits Of Universalism In Comparative Judicial Review, Adam M. Dodek
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
For most of the twentieth century, the dominant paradigm in comparative public law was particularism. This was accompanied by a strong skepticism towards universalist features and possibilities in public law and, especially, constitutional law. With the rise of judicial review after World War I--and especially in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union--comparative judicial review has begun to flourish. However, comparative scholarship on judicial review overemphasizes the centrality of "the question of legitimacy" of judicial review in a democratic polity. This has been a result of the mistaken extrapolation of the American debate over judicial review to other …
There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, William R. Casto
There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, William R. Casto
Vanderbilt Law Review
John Marshall is the Agamemnon of Supreme Court history. He is universally considered the Court's greatest Justice, and rightly so. But there were great Justices before Marshall. One of those great Justices was James Iredell. No Justice in the Court's history has provided a more detailed or sophisticated explanation and justification of the doctrine of judicial review. Iredell needs a bard, and this Essay is my ode to his memory.
Irrelevant Oversight: "Presidential Administration" From The Standpoint Of Arbitrary And Capricious Review, Daniel P. Rathbun
Irrelevant Oversight: "Presidential Administration" From The Standpoint Of Arbitrary And Capricious Review, Daniel P. Rathbun
Michigan Law Review
The president is now regularly and heavily involved in the decisionmaking processes of administrative agencies. What began in the mid-twentieth century as macro-level oversight has evolved, since the Reagan Administration, into controlling case-level influence. Scholars have hotly debated the legality of this shift and have compellingly demonstrated the need to ensure that agencies remain accountable and that their decisions remain nonarbitrary in the face of presidential involvement. However, as this Note demonstrates, the existing scholarship has not provided an adequate solution to these twin problems. This Note provides a novel and effective solution to the accountability and arbitrariness problems of …
Arbitration After Hall Street V. Mattel: What Happens Next?, Stanley A. Leasure
Arbitration After Hall Street V. Mattel: What Happens Next?, Stanley A. Leasure
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Determining The Appropriate Standard Of Review In Wto Disputes, Andrew T. Guzman
Determining The Appropriate Standard Of Review In Wto Disputes, Andrew T. Guzman
Cornell International Law Journal
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of “Footnote Four”: A Historical Analysis Of The New Deal’S Effect On Land Regulation In The U.S. Supreme Court, Christopher S. Dodrill
In Defense Of “Footnote Four”: A Historical Analysis Of The New Deal’S Effect On Land Regulation In The U.S. Supreme Court, Christopher S. Dodrill
Law and Contemporary Problems
At the turn of the nineteenth century, the US Supreme Court established and reinforced numerous so-called "economic rights." During the Lochner v. New York era, the Court invalidated almost 200 federal and state economic and labor regulations for interfering with the right to contract and for violating substantive due process. In 1937, however, Justice Stone's famous "footnote four" in United States v. Carolene Products Co. closed the coffin on Lochner. After Carolene Products, the Court stopped applying heightened scrutiny to economic legislation, and it began consciously protecting "discrete and insular minorities." Here, Dodrill explains the Lochner-era Supreme Court's standard of …
Crowning The New King: The Statutory Arbitrator And The Demise Of Judicial Review, Michael H. Leroy
Crowning The New King: The Statutory Arbitrator And The Demise Of Judicial Review, Michael H. Leroy
Journal of Dispute Resolution
Judicial review of arbitration awards is highly deferential-but when does it become rubber stamping? Using original data, I find that federal courts vacated only 4.3 percent of 162 disputed arbitration awards. A sub-sample of forty-four employment discrimination arbitration awards under Title VII produced similar results. By comparison, federal Courts of Appeals in 2006 reversed 12.9 percent of 5,917 rulings made by civil court judges on the merits of legal claims.
The Conscience Of A Court, Girardeau A. Spann
The Conscience Of A Court, Girardeau A. Spann
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.