Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional law (3)
- Originalism (2)
- Precedent (2)
- Scalia (2)
- Stare decisis (2)
-
- Supreme court (2)
- Civil rights (1)
- Conformity act (1)
- Constitutional Revolution (1)
- Copyright Law (1)
- Court-packing (1)
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
- Dastar (1)
- Economic rights (1)
- Equity (1)
- Federal common law (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Helvering v. Davis (1)
- Historical practice (1)
- Hughes Court (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Implied rights of action (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- International human rights (1)
- Judicial Restraint (1)
- Judicial discretion (1)
- Judicial enforcement (1)
- Labor Board Cases (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 20 of 20
Full-Text Articles in Law
Flint Of Outrage, Toni M. Massaro, Ellen Elizabeth Brooks
Flint Of Outrage, Toni M. Massaro, Ellen Elizabeth Brooks
Notre Dame Law Review
Officials replaced safe water sources with contaminated water sources for tens of thousands of people living in Flint, Michigan, from April 2014 to October 2015. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the officials knew the water was potentially harmful to residents’ health and property. This unfathomable disregard for the residents of Flint sparked national outrage and prompted criminal charges as well as multiple civil suits.
Residents’ civil claims included two strands of substantive due process: that the actions infringed residents’ fundamental liberty rights to bodily integrity and to state protection from harmful acts by third parties, and that the government actions “shocked …
The Case Against Oral Argument: The Effects Of Confirmation Bias On The Outcome Of Selected Cases In The Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals, Christine M. Venter
The Case Against Oral Argument: The Effects Of Confirmation Bias On The Outcome Of Selected Cases In The Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals, Christine M. Venter
Journal Articles
Scholars have long been divided over the role, function, and significance, if any, of oral argument in judicial decision-making.' Federal courts seem similarly divided, as some circuits routinely grant oral argument in almost every case, while others grant oral argument in only a small fraction of appeals. This divide should not be dismissed as merely an idiosyncratic debate or as a response to excessive workload, particularly when one considers that approximately 53,000 appeals were filed in federal courts of appeals in the year ending September 30, 2016.2 Since the Supreme Court grants certiorari in only approximately eighty cases each year, …
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet
Court Briefs
ASTM’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—the standards for which it claims copyright ownership. Dastar unambiguously holds, however, that only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the authorship of the standards or their authorization is not actionable. ASTM cannot avoid Dastar just because Public Resource creates digital copies of those standards. Consumers encounter the ASTM marks only as part of the standards, into which ATSM chose to embed the marks. As a result, any “confusion” could only be the result of the content itself. Dastar teaches that …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway
Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway
Court Briefs
Plaintiff’s false designation of origin and false endorsement claims, such as they are, rest on the assertion that defendants falsely represented themselves as the origin of intellectual property on which the Oculus Rift is based. Those claims are barred by Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that only confusion regarding the origin of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act.
The Classical Avoidance Canon As A Principle Of Good-Faith Construction, Brian Taylor Goldman
The Classical Avoidance Canon As A Principle Of Good-Faith Construction, Brian Taylor Goldman
Journal of Legislation
No abstract provided.
The Constitution That Couldn’T: Examining The Implicit Imbalance Of Constitutional Power In The Context Of Nominations, And The Need For Its Remedy, James E. Britton
The Constitution That Couldn’T: Examining The Implicit Imbalance Of Constitutional Power In The Context Of Nominations, And The Need For Its Remedy, James E. Britton
Journal of Legislation
No abstract provided.
California Propositions 62 & 66 As Misguided Models For The Capital Punishment Debate: The Argument For The Inclusion Of Catholic Social Teaching And Other Religious Denominations In The Discussion And A Proposed Solution, Cornelius V. Loughery
Journal of Legislation
No abstract provided.
Penn Central Take Two, Christopher Serkin
Penn Central Take Two, Christopher Serkin
Notre Dame Law Review
Penn Central v. New York City is the most important regulatory takings case of all time. There, the Supreme Court upheld the historic preservation of Grand Central Terminal in part because the City offset the burden of the landmarking with a valuable new property interest—a transferable development right (TDR)—that could be sold to neighboring property. Extraordinarily, 1.2 million square feet of those very same TDRs, still unused for over forty years, are the subject of newly resolved takings litigation. According to the complaint, the TDRs that saved Grand Central were themselves taken by the government, which allegedly wiped out their …
The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule
The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule
Notre Dame Law Review
This Article looks at a rare part of the judicial role: those exceptional cases when the judge is called upon to pass judgment on the constitution itself. This arises in three groups of cases, roughly speaking. First, in exceptional cases the validity of the constitution and the legal order is thrown into dispute. Second, on some occasions the judge is asked to rule on the transition from one constitutional order to another. Third, there are some cases in which the health of the constitutional order requires the judge to act not merely beyond the law, as it were, but actually …
Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel
Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel
Journal Articles
The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its position on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways both large and small.
The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the …
Dynamic Regulatory Constitutionalism: Taking Legislation Seriously In The Judicial Enforcement Of Economic And Social Rights, Richard Stacey
Dynamic Regulatory Constitutionalism: Taking Legislation Seriously In The Judicial Enforcement Of Economic And Social Rights, Richard Stacey
Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy
The international human rights revolution in the decades after the Second World War recognized economic and social rights alongside civil and political rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1966, regional treaties, and subject-specific treaties variously describe rights to food, shelter, health, and education, and set out state obligations for the treatment of children. When they first appeared, these international, economic, and social rights instruments raised questions about whether economic and social rights are justiciable in domestic legal contexts and whether they can be meaningfully enforced by courts …
Capital Punishment Of Unintentional Felony Murder, Guyora Binder, Brenner Fissell, Robert Weisberg
Capital Punishment Of Unintentional Felony Murder, Guyora Binder, Brenner Fissell, Robert Weisberg
Notre Dame Law Review
Under the prevailing interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in the lower courts, a defendant who causes a death inadvertently in the course of a felony is eligible for capital punishment. This unfortunate interpretation rests on an unduly mechanical reading of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona, which require culpability for capital punishment of co-felons who do not kill. The lower courts have drawn the unwarranted inference that these cases permit execution of those who cause death without any culpability towards death. This Article shows that this mechanical reading of precedent is mistaken, because the …
Subconstitutional Checks, Shima Baradaran Baughman
Subconstitutional Checks, Shima Baradaran Baughman
Notre Dame Law Review
Constitutional checks are an important part of the American justice system. The Constitution demands structural checks where it provides commensurate power. The Constitution includes several explicit checks in criminal law. Criminal defendants have rights to counsel, indictment by grand jury, and trial by jury; the public or executive elects or appoints prosecutors; legislatures limit actions of police and prosecutors; and courts enforce individual constitutional rights and stop executive misconduct. However, these checks have rarely functioned as intended because the Constitution and criminal law have failed to create—what I call—“subconstitutional checks” to adapt to the changes of the modern criminal state. …
Data Breaches, Identity Theft, And Article Iii Standing: Will The Supreme Court Resolve The Split In The Circuits?, Bradford C. Mank
Data Breaches, Identity Theft, And Article Iii Standing: Will The Supreme Court Resolve The Split In The Circuits?, Bradford C. Mank
Notre Dame Law Review
In data breach cases, the plaintiff typically alleges that the defendant used inadequate computer security to protect the plaintiff’s personal data. In most, but not all cases, the plaintiff cannot prove that a hacker or thief has actually used or sold the data to the plaintiff’s detriment. In most cases, a plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s failure to protect his personal data has caused him damages by increasing his risk of suffering actual identity theft in the future and therefore imposed costs on the plaintiff when he reasonably takes measures to prevent future unauthorized third-party data access by purchasing credit …
Lafler V. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response To A Constitutional Violation, Matthew T. Ciulla
Lafler V. Cooper's Remedy: A Weak Response To A Constitutional Violation, Matthew T. Ciulla
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
The Lafler v. Cooper Court should have chosen the remedy of specific performance of the original plea bargain. The specific performance remedy, long implemented by federal courts in Lafler-like scenarios, and ordered by the district court in Lafler, precisely cures the Lafler injury—the accused regains the ability to accept the original plea offer, except he now has the benefit of effective assistance of counsel. The specific performance remedy, when coupled with the safeguards of the Strickland prongs, poses little risk of abuse, and gives heft to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel in the plea …
Inside The 'Constitutional Revolution' Of 1937, Barry Cushman
Inside The 'Constitutional Revolution' Of 1937, Barry Cushman
Journal Articles
The nature and sources of the New Deal Constitutional Revolution are among the most discussed and debated subjects in constitutional historiography. Scholars have reached significantly divergent conclusions concerning how best to understand the meaning and the causes of constitutional decisions rendered by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Though recent years have witnessed certain refinements in scholarly understandings of various dimensions of the phenomenon, the relevant documentary record seemed to have been rather thoroughly explored. Recently, however, a remarkably instructive set of primary sources has become available. For many years, the docket books kept by a number …
Justice Scalia, The Nondelegation Doctrine, And Constitutional Argument, William K. Kelley
Justice Scalia, The Nondelegation Doctrine, And Constitutional Argument, William K. Kelley
Journal Articles
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote two major opinions considering the nondelegation doctrine. In Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, he accepted and applied a very broad, indeed virtually unlimited, view of Congress's power to delegate authority to administrative agencies that was consistent with the Court's precedents since the New Deal. In his dissent in Mistretta v. United States, however, he concluded that the constitutional structure formally barred the delegation of naked rulemaking power to an agency that was untethered to other law execution tasks. This essay analyzes Justice Scalia's nondelegation jurisprudence in light of the general jurisprudential commitments he championed throughout his …
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia
Justice Scalia, Implied Rights Of Action, And Historical Practice, Anthony J. Bellia
Journal Articles
In the realm of Federal Courts, the question of “implied rights of action” asks when, if ever, may a plaintiff bring a federal right of action for the violation of a federal statute that does not expressly create one. Justice Scalia argued that a court should not entertain an action for damages for the violation of a federal statute unless the text of the statute demonstrates that Congress meant to create a right of action. The Supreme Court adopted this approach in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority. Certain judges and scholars have argued …
Countering The Majoritarian Difficulty, Amy Coney Barrett
Countering The Majoritarian Difficulty, Amy Coney Barrett
Journal Articles
In Our Republican Constitution, Randy Barnett argues that the United States Constitution rests on a foundation of individual rather than collective popular sovereignty. Grounding the legitimacy of the government in the authority given it by each individual rather than by the People as a whole echoes the thesis, advanced in Barnett’s prior work, that the government must justify incursions upon individual liberty. If the People as a body are sovereign and the Constitution is designed to facilitate democratic self-governance, legislation is presumptively legitimate because it represents the sovereign will of the democratic majority. If the individual is sovereign, by contrast, …
Multiple Chancellors: Reforming The National Injunction, Samuel L. Bray
Multiple Chancellors: Reforming The National Injunction, Samuel L. Bray
Journal Articles
In several recent high-profile cases, federal district judges have issued injunctions that apply across the nation, controlling the defendants’ behavior with respect to nonparties. This Article analyzes the scope of injunctions to restrain the enforcement of a federal statute, regulation, or order. This analysis shows the consequences of the national injunction: more forum shopping, worse judicial decisionmaking, a risk of conflicting injunctions, and tension with other doctrines and practices of the federal courts.
This Article shows that the national injunction is a recent development in the history of equity. There was a structural shift at the Founding from a single-chancellor …