Law Commons^™

Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When courts and commentators discuss Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, they use the same word with remarkable regularity: famous. Mahon has achieved this fame in part because it was the occasion for conflict between judicial giants, and because the result seems ironic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--the great Lochner dissenter and a jurist generally considered a champion of judicial deference to legislatures in the sphere of economic decision-making--wrote the opinion striking down a Pennsylvania statute barring coal mining that could cause the surface to cave-in. Sharply dissenting from Holmes's opinion was his consistent ally on the Court, Justice Louis …

Breard And The Federal Power To Require Compliance With Icj Orders Of Provisional Measures, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Among the puzzling aspects of the Breard episode was the Clinton administration's claim that the decision whether or not to comply with the Order of the International Court of Justice requiring the postponement of Breard's execution lay exclusively in the hands of the Governor of Virginia. The ICJ's Order provided that"[t]he United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings." The Clinton administration argued that the Order was not binding, but it also took the position that, even if the order were binding, …

Night And Day: Coeur D’Alene, Breard, And The Unraveling Of The Prospective-Retrospective Distinction In Eleventh Amendment Doctrine, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v. Jordan has been read to establish a distinction between suits seeking prospective relief from a state official's violation of federal law (which are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Ex parte Young) and suits seeking retrospective relief from the state (which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, even if the officer is the defendant). Commentators and the lower courts have long had difficulty understanding and applying the distinction. Until recently, the principal effect of the Edelman line of cases has been to bar suits seeking damages and similar monetary relief from …

The Summary Affirmance Proposal Of The Board Of Immigration Appeals, Philip G. Schrag

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Board of Immigration Appeals is on the verge of making a tragic mistake, trading away a key element of fair adjudication--the written opinion--for the sake of what it hopes will be greater administrative efficiency. The cost of eliminating written adjudication is too great, and the Board has given no indication that it has sufficiently canvassed less drastic alternatives.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (the "Board") is the primary appellate body for immigration law. The "staple" of its work is to decide appeals from decisions of Immigration Judges in removal proceedings, though it also hears appeals in several other categories, …

Making Constitutional Doctrine In A Realist Age, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this article the author considers three examples of modern constitutional doctrine that show how judges have stolen bits and pieces from popularized skepticisms about the job of judging and have molded this stolen rhetoric into doctrine. In the first example, she asks whether constitutional law's recent penchant for doctrinal rules based on "clear law" could have existed without the modern age's obsession with legal uncertainty. In the second, the author considers whether our contemporary rhetoric of constitutional "interests" and "expectations" reflects modern critiques of doctrine as failing to address social needs. In the third, she asks how an offhand …

Passion's Progress: Modern Law Reform And The Provocation Defense, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Based on a systematic study of fifteen years of passion murder cases, this article concludes that reform challenges our conventional ideas of a "crime of passion" and, in the process, leads to a murder law that is both illiberal and often perverse. If life tells us that crimes of passion are the stuff of sordid affairs and bedside confrontations, reform tells us that the law's passion may be something quite different. A significant number of the reform cases the author has studied involve no sexual infidelity whatsoever, but only the desire of the killer's victim to leave a miserable relationship. …

Congressional Self-Discipline: The Constitutionality Of Supermajority Rules, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Congress needs to be more disciplined. It has at times become sloppy and even cavalier. When, for example, Congress enacted the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, it was asking for trouble. Neither the legislation nor the legislative history said anything about any effect on interstate commerce. It was therefore not surprising to see the Supreme Court strike the law down in United States v. Lopez.

The Armstrong Principle, The Narratives Of Takings, And Compensation Statutes, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is famous for inspiring disagreement. More than one hundred years have passed since the Supreme Court departed from the original understanding of the clause and interpreted regulations as potentially falling within its ambit. Although the passage of time has established the principle that regulations can run afoul of the Takings Clause, the Court has been unable to offer a coherent vision of when compensation is required. Academic commentators also have failed to reach agreement on the issue, offering an enormous range of solutions to the takings question. The newest field of controversy involves …

What Is Eleventh Amendment Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment decisions give conflicting signals about what the Amendment does. On one view, the Amendment functions as a forum-allocation principle--immunizing states from liability in suits filed in federal court, but leaving open the possibility that states may be compelled to entertain suits against themselves in their own courts. A separate line of cases, however, implies that state courts enjoy an immunity from suit in their own courts and that nothing in the Constitution withdraws such immunity; on this view, the Eleventh Amendment, by protecting the states from suit in the federal courts, effectively immunizes the states …

Constitutional Fictions And Meritocratic Success Stories, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

L.H. LaRue demonstrates in his book, Constitutional Law as Fiction, that, at least in the realm of constitutional law, there is no simple correspondence between fiction and falsehood, or fact and truth. Partial or fictive accounts of our constitutional history, even when they are riddled with inaccuracies, may state deep truths about our world, and accurate recitations of historical events may be either intentionally or unintentionally misleading in the extreme. According to LaRue, the Supreme Court engages in a form of storytelling or myth-making that goes beyond the inevitably partial narratives of fact and precedent. The Supreme Court also tells …

The Four Doctrines Of Self-Executing Treaties, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction--indeed, its very existence--is a matter of some controversy and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the "most confounding" in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson's observation that " [t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion" surrounding it. The …

Presidential Power: Should Bill Clinton Be Immune From Lawsuits On Allegations Of Past Acts?, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed her complaint against Bill Clinton she joined a small group of women who have publicly accused men in high-profile positions of sexual harassment.

A classic "he said, she said" story? We may never know, if the president is able to argue successfully that his office shields him from liability for actions occurring prior to assuming it. On June 27, his lawyer, Robert Bennett, asked a federal court to delay action, and said he would be filing a separate motion in August on the issue.

The defense is based on the 1982 case …

The Case Of The Prisoners And The Origins Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For over one hundred years, scholars have closely studied the handful of cases in which state courts, in the years before the Federal Constitutional Convention, confronted the question whether they had the power to declare laws invalid. Interest in these early cases began in the late nineteenth century as one aspect of the larger debate about the legitimacy of judicial review, a debate triggered by the increasing frequency with which the Supreme Court and state courts were invalidating economic and social legislation. The lawyers, political scientists, and historians who initially unearthed the case law from the 1770s and 1780s used …

Prospective Overruling And The Revival Of ‘Unconstitutional' Statutes, William Michael Treanor, Gene B. Sperling

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reshaped the law of abortion in this country. The Court overturned two of its previous decisions invalidating state restrictions on abortions, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, and it abandoned the trimester analytic framework established in Roe v. Wade. At the time Casey was handed down, twenty states had restrictive abortion statutes on the books that were in conflict with Akron or Thornburgh and which were unenforced. In six of these states, courts had held the statutes unconstitutional. Almost …

The Aspirational Constitution, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Firmly embedded in every theory of judicial decisionmaking lies an important set of assumptions about the way government is supposed to work. Sometimes these theories about government are made explicit. More often they are not. Moreover, deeply embedded in every theory of government is a theory of human nature. Although these assumptions about human nature generally remain latent within the larger theory, because they provide the underpinnings for our ideas about the way government is supposed to work, they drive our notions about judicial decisionmaking. For example, the theory of government reflected in the United States Constitution reveals what one …

The “Self-Executing” Character Of The Refugee Protocol’S Nonrefoulement Obligation, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When the United States ratified the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Protocol), it undertook not to "expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened" on specified grounds. On May 24, 1992, President Bush issued an executive order, known as the Kennebunkport Order, authorizing the United States Coast Guard to interdict vessels on the high seas suspected of containing Haitians destined for U.S. shores and to return such persons to Haiti without regard to whether their lives or freedom would …

Thurgood Marshall: Courageous Advocate, Compassionate Judge, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Thurgood Marshall's life has spanned virtually the entire twentieth century, allowing him to witness its worst and its best. When he was born in 1908, segregation was legal and pervasive, and racial hatred extreme; in the year of his birth alone, eighty-nine black men were lynched. A grandson of slaves on both sides of his family, Marshall knew, from an early age, both the ugliness and the tenacity of racism. Determined to fight it, Marshall disregarded the difficulties and the dangers, and spent his life battling discrimination, earning the nickname "Mr. Civil Rights." His efforts, coupled with those of others …

Treaty-Based Rights And Remedies Of Individuals, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Treaties are frequently described as contracts between nations. As instruments of international law, they establish obligations with which international law requires the parties to comply. In the United States, treaties also have the status of law in the domestic legal system. The Supremacy Clause declares treaties to be the "supreme Law of the Land" and instructs the courts to give them effect. The status of treaties as law in two distinct legal orders has given rise to unusual conceptual problems. In recent years, it has produced confusion among the courts regarding the enforceability of treaties in the courts by individuals. …

Introductory Remarks: Brown V. Board Of Education And Its Legacy: A Tribute To Justice Thurgood Marshall, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This issue of the Fordham Law Review presents Fordham Law School's tribute to one of the giants of American law and American history on the occasion of his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall. Because he decided to make the law his career and because of the way in which he pursued that career, the United States today is a remarkably different place than it was in 1933 when he began practice, and ours is a far more just society.

Justice Marshall made history repeatedly--as Chief Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, as Judge of the United …

Equality Theory, Marital Rape, And The Promise Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

During the 1980s a handful of state judges either held or opined in dicta what must be incontrovertible to the feminist community, as well as to most progressive legal advocates and academics: the so-called marital rape exemption, whether statutory or common law in origin, constitutes a denial of a married woman's constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Indeed, a more obvious denial of equal protection is difficult to imagine: the marital rape exemption denies married women protection against violent crime solely on the basis of gender and marital status. What possibly could be less rational than a statute …

A ‘Non-Power’ Looks At Separation Of Powers, Alan B. Morrison

Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture

On April 6, 1989, Dean, Alan B. Morrison of George Washington Law, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s ninth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: "A ‘Non-Power’ Looks at Separation of Powers."

Dean Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service at GW Law. He is responsible for creating pro bono opportunities for students, bringing a wide range of public interest programs to the law school, encouraging students to seek positions in the non-profit and government sectors, and assisting students find ways to fund their legal education to make it possible for them to pursue careers …

The Early Role Of The Attorney General In Our Constitutional Scheme: In The Beginning There Was Pragmatism, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article attempts to accomplish two distinct but related objectives. First, it initiates the proposed systematic study of the Office of the Attorney General by examining its early role. Second, it explores how these early experiences help to answer today's questions. To those ends, part I examines the establishment of the Office of the Attorney General. Studying the genesis of the office and contrasting it to the other significant offices created by the First Congress, such as the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, War, and Treasury, reveals the priorities and concerns of these early legislators, many of whom had been instrumental …

Baby M And The Cassandra Problem, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Part I of this essay outlines the facts of the Baby M case and traces the reasoning the New Jersey Supreme Court used to justify the legal conclusions that it reached.

Part II then identifies the three common analytical techniques or modes of argument on which the state supreme court relied in conducting its analysis and suggests that each is itself too dependent upon unprincipled policy preferences to have excluded such preferences from the decisionmaking process.

Finally, Part III suggests that no matter how strong an argument one might offer to demonstrate the systemic vulnerability of principle to preference, the …

Taking The Framers Seriously, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews Taking the Constitution Seriously by Walter Berns (1987).

This review focuses on three of the key historical points that Walter Berns makes: his arguments that the Declaration of Independence is a Lockean document; that the Constitution encapsulates the political philosophy of the Declaration; and that the framers viewed the commercialization of society as a salutary development and were unambivalent champions of the right to property. Examination of these issues suggests that the ideological universe of the framers was far more complex than Berns indicates. While the revolutionary era witnessed a new concern with individual rights and a …

Expository Justice, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The task of the federal judiciary is seriously complicated by the fact that it has to play one role while pretending to play another. We ask the courts to pretend that they are resolving disputes between parties, but what we really want them to do is tell us how to conform our behavior to our fundamental values. Society needs a branch of government to implement its fundamental values, and the federal judiciary is well suited to that task because it possesses the precise balance of autonomy and public accountability needed to perform the function properly.

However, the dispute resolution charade …

Review Of The New Deal Lawyers, By Peter H. Irons, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article reviews The New Deal Lawyers by Peter H. Irons (1982).

The government lawyers who helped shape and defend New Deal agencies have received little attention from scholars. Any oversight has now, however, been redressed. The New Deal Lawyers provides a detailed and careful study of the litigation process that preceded the New Deal's 1937 court triumphs. Peter Irons' book focuses on the activities of three key agencies and their general counsels: the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and Donald Richberg; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and Jerome Frank; and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Charles Fahy. Each …

The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

The Second Circuit Review--1975-76 Term: Courts-- Evidence & Procedure: Commentary: The Second Circuit And The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most significant development in federal trial procedure in recent years has been the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective July 1, 1975. In the intervening two years since the Rules became effective, the courts of the Second Circuit have bad occasion to make several illuminating applications of and references to them.

An examination of some of these decisions provides insight into the kinds of questions that are coming up not only in the Second Circuit, but around the country, and the kinds of answers that are being given. It is not the bizarre or unusual case that …

The Proposed Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court has approved a uniform code of evidence for all federal courts. Amendments to the Supreme Court's rules are now pending in the House of Representatives. From the point of view of a specialist in the law of evidence, Professor Rothstein analyzes the differences between the Supreme Court's proposals and the House amendments and suggests solutions to these conflicts.