Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (4)
- Courts (3)
- Administrative Law (2)
- Immigration Law (2)
- Judges (2)
-
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Political Science (1)
- Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Streamlining" The Rule Of Law: How The Department Of Justice Is Undermining Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Shruti Rana
"Streamlining" The Rule Of Law: How The Department Of Justice Is Undermining Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Shruti Rana
Shruti Rana
Judicial review of administrative decision making is an essential institutional check on agency power. Recently, however, the Department of Justice dramatically revised its regulations in an attempt to insulate its decision making from public and federal court scrutiny. These “streamlining” rules, carried out in the name of national security and immigration reform, have led to a breakdown in the rule of law in our judicial system. While much attention has been focused on the Department of Justice’s recent attempts to shield executive power from the reach of Congress, its efforts to undermine judicial review have so far escaped such scrutiny. …
The Countermajoritarian Difficulty: From Courts To Congress To Constitutional Order, Mark A. Graber
The Countermajoritarian Difficulty: From Courts To Congress To Constitutional Order, Mark A. Graber
Mark Graber
This review documents how scholarly concern with democratic deficits in American constitutionalism has shifted from the courts to electoral institutions. Prominent political scientists are increasingly rejecting the countermajoritarian difficulty as the proper framework for studying and evaluating judicial power. Political scientists, who study Congress and the presidency, however, have recently emphasized countermajoritarian difficulties with electoral institutions. Realistic normative appraisals of American political institutions, this emerging literature on constitutional politics in the United States maintains, should begin by postulating a set of democratic and constitutional goods, determine the extent to which American institutions as a whole are delivering those goods, and …
The Revolution Will Be Sub Silento: The Roberts Court And The Democratic Costs Of Judicial Minimalism, Scott E. Lemieux
The Revolution Will Be Sub Silento: The Roberts Court And The Democratic Costs Of Judicial Minimalism, Scott E. Lemieux
Scott E Lemieux
Various theorists have touted the virtues of the jurisprudence known as “minimalism,” in which judges avoid broad holdings and try to avoid reaching large constitutional issues if narrower holdings are available. Minimalism, its proponents assert, increases judicial modesty, improves the quality of political deliberation, and enhances the legitimacy of the court. The first terms of the Roberts Court (as well as the late Rehnquist Court), however, raise doubts about these purported virtues. In practice, judicial minimalism does not have a strong relationship with judicial modesty, various techniques associated with minimalism carry serious democratic costs, and courts are not inherently entitled …
James Buchanan As Savior? Judicial Power, Political Fragmentation, And The Failed 1831 Repeal Of Section 25, Mark Graber
James Buchanan As Savior? Judicial Power, Political Fragmentation, And The Failed 1831 Repeal Of Section 25, Mark Graber
Mark Graber
James Buchanan is often credited with being the unlikely savior of judicial review in early Jacksonian America. In 1831, Buchanan, then a representative from Pennsylvania, issued a minority report criticizing the proposed repeal of Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that is generally credited with convincing a skeptical Congress that fundamental constitutional norms required federal judicial oversight of state courts and state legislatures. This paper claims that federalism and political fragmentation were more responsible than James Buchanan for the failed repeal of Section 25, for the maintenance of judicial power in the United States during the transition from …
The Myth Of The Written Constitution, Todd E. Pettys
The Myth Of The Written Constitution, Todd E. Pettys
Todd E. Pettys
Many Americans have long subscribed to what this Article calls the myth of the written constitution—the claim that the nation’s Constitution consists entirely of those texts that the sovereign American people have formally ratified, and the claim that the will of the American people, as expressed in those ratified texts, determines the way in which properly behaving judges resolve constitutional disputes. Drawing on two different meanings of the term myth, this Article contends that neither of those claims is literally true, but that Americans’ attachment to those claims serves at least three crucial functions. Subscribing to the myth helps to …
Deliberative Democracy And Weak Courts: Constitutional Design In Nascent Democracies, Edsel F. Tupaz
Deliberative Democracy And Weak Courts: Constitutional Design In Nascent Democracies, Edsel F. Tupaz
Edsel F Tupaz
This Article addresses the question of constitutional design in young and transitional democracies. It argues for the adoption of a “weak” form of judicial review, as opposed to “strong” review which typifies much of contemporary adjudication. It briefly describes how the dialogical strain of deliberative democratic theory might well constitute the normative predicate for systems of weak review. In doing so, the Article draws from various judicial practices, from European supranational tribunals to Canadian courts and even Indian jurisprudence. The Article concludes with the suggestion that no judicial apparatus other than the weak structure of judicial review can better incite …
Legislative Supremacy In The United States?: Rethinking The Enrolled Bill Doctrine, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
Legislative Supremacy In The United States?: Rethinking The Enrolled Bill Doctrine, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov
This Article revisits the “enrolled bill” doctrine which requires courts to accept the signatures of the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate on the “enrolled bill” as unimpeachable evidence that a bill has been constitutionally enacted. It argues that this time-honored doctrine has far-reaching ramifications that were largely overlooked in existing discussions. In addition to reexamining the soundness of this doctrine’s main rationales, the Article introduces two major novel arguments against the doctrine. First, it argues that the doctrine amounts to an impermissible delegation of both judicial and lawmaking powers to the legislative officers of Congress. Second, …
A Broader View Of The Immigration Adjudication Problem, Jill Family
A Broader View Of The Immigration Adjudication Problem, Jill Family
Jill E. Family
Networks Of Heightened Scrutiny In Corporate Law, Reza Dibadj
Networks Of Heightened Scrutiny In Corporate Law, Reza Dibadj
Reza Dibadj
This Article is a follow-up to a previous article, Networks of Fairness Review in Corporate Law (Fairness). After an overview of the fundamentals of the fairness standard and network theory, Fairness deployed network and statistical analyses to conduct an empirical study of the fairness doctrine as articulated by the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Court of Chancery. This initial analysis focused on the fairness standard for one principal reason: it is considered to be the most plaintiff-friendly standard of review, in marked distinction to the well-known business judgment rule (BJR). But there are also four other prominent standards of …
Arbitration And Choice: Taking Charge Of The 'New Litigation', Thomas J. Stipanowich
Arbitration And Choice: Taking Charge Of The 'New Litigation', Thomas J. Stipanowich
Thomas J. Stipanowich
Despite meaningful efforts to promote better practices and ensure quality among arbitrators and advocates, criticism of American arbitration is at a crescendo. Much of this criticism stems from the fact that arbitration under standard procedures has taken on the trappings of litigation - extensive discovery and motion practice, highly contentious advocacy, long cycle time and high cost. Paradoxically, concerns about the absence of appeal on the merits in arbitration have caused some to craft provisions calling for judicial review for errors of law or fact in awards. It is time to return to fundamentals in American arbitration. Those who seek …
Abuse And Discretion: Evaluating Judicial Discretion In Custody Cases Involving Violence Against Women, Dana Harrington Conner
Abuse And Discretion: Evaluating Judicial Discretion In Custody Cases Involving Violence Against Women, Dana Harrington Conner
Dana Harrington Conner
This Article is an exploration of the history and creation of the broad power of the custody trial judge, the unsatisfactory standards applied in custody cases involving violence against women, and our system’s inability to adequately review flawed decisions at the appellate level. The Article deconstructs both the process of judicial decision-making at the trial court level in custody cases involving batterers and the standards applied to these cases at the appellate court stage. In addition, the Article also proposes a multi-level approach to resolving the domestic violence dilemma in a custody case.
History confirms that the custody trial judge …