Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Behind The Parity Debate: The Decline Of The Legal Process Tradition In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
Behind The Parity Debate: The Decline Of The Legal Process Tradition In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
Whether there is parity between federal and state courts has become a central question in the law of federal courts, dividing judges and commentators into two well-defined camps. Although the issue rarely arose thirty years ago, it now enters into virtually every discussion of the rules concerning access to federal court for constitutional claims. On one side of the debate, advocates of broad federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state action claim that federal courts are better than state courts at adjudicating these controversies. On the other side, advocates of state court jurisdiction insist that state courts are fully adequate …
The Constitutional Case Against Intracircuit Nonacquiescence, Dan T. Coenen
The Constitutional Case Against Intracircuit Nonacquiescence, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
A cornerstone of the United States Constitution is its separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the national government. The Framers of the Constitution reasoned that separated powers would guard against tyranny by blocking the undue concentration of authority in any single governmental department. In crafting the Constitution, however, the Framers could not anticipate every dispute their scheme of separated powers might engender. One modern separation-of-powers conflict not specifically anticipated by the constitutional text involves so-called "intracircuit nonacquiescence.”
Intracircuit nonacquiescence occurs when executive-branch decision makers refuse to follow a circuit court's precedents even when acting subject …
Against An Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments On The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee, Michael L. Wells
Against An Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments On The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee, Michael L. Wells
Scholarly Works
No doubt some reform of the federal courts is essential if they are to cope with the proliferation of litigation over the past thirty years and the resulting "congestion, delay, expense, and expansion" in the federal courts. While the problem may not amount to an "impending crisis", the burgeoning caseload surely poses a threat, at least in the long run, to the ability of the federal courts to function effectively. The hard question is not whether something should be done, but what to do about it. There is no shortage of interesting ideas. Some of the ideas that clamor for …