Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Mandatory Predispute Consumer Arbitration, Structural Bias, And Incentivizing Procedural Safeguards, Nancy A. Welsh Jul 2018

Mandatory Predispute Consumer Arbitration, Structural Bias, And Incentivizing Procedural Safeguards, Nancy A. Welsh

Nancy Welsh

Within the past several decades, there has been an explosion in the creation, institutionalization and use of “alternative” dispute resolution procedures. Mandatory predispute arbitration has generated the most controversy because it appears beset with structural bias. The recent cases of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood have raised additional concerns as the Supreme Court has announced that corporations can force consumers to arbitrate their private and statutory claims and give up their rights to pursue class relief. This Article begins by arguing that the Supreme Court’s enthusiastic embrace of mandatory predispute arbitration should be understood primarily …


“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman May 2018

“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Federal district courts are routinely issuing broad injunctions prohibiting the federal government from enforcing constitutionally invalid laws, regulations, and policies on immigration and immigration-adjacent issues. Styled “nationwide injunctions,” they prohibit enforcement of the challenges laws not only against the named plaintiffs, but against all people and entities everywhere.

The first problem with these injunctions is one of nomenclature. “Nationwide” suggests something about the “where” of the injunction, the geographic scope in which it protects. The better term is “universal injunction,” which captures the real controversy over the “who” of the injunction, as courts purport to protect the universe of all …


The Role Of International Actors In Promoting Rule Of Law In Uganda, Joseph M. Isanga Mar 2018

The Role Of International Actors In Promoting Rule Of Law In Uganda, Joseph M. Isanga

Joseph Isanga

African conflicts have been caused in part by regimes that do not respect democracy. Uganda is an illustrative case. International actors have played along under an undeclared policy of constructive engagement, but this has essentially served only to delay democratic evolution. As a result, Ugandan leaders have become increasingly autocratic. In such circumstances, reliance on the military and personal rule based on patronage--as opposed to democracy and the rule of law-have become critically important in governance. Yet forceful measures often only beget forceful reactions. The best hope for democracy is for courts to enforce the will of the people as …


African Courts And Separation Of Powers: A Comparative Study Of Judicial Review In Uganda & South, Joseph M. Isanga Mar 2018

African Courts And Separation Of Powers: A Comparative Study Of Judicial Review In Uganda & South, Joseph M. Isanga

Joseph Isanga

Achieving political stability in a transitional democracy is a fundamental goal, the resoluteness of which is in part maintained by courts of judicial review that are independent from political bias and devoid of deference to traditionally more powerful branches of government. The recent democratic transitions occurring in the African nations of South Africa and Uganda provide a unique, contemporary insight into the formation of a constitutional jurisprudence. This study is an examination of pivotal cases decided by the Constitutional Courts of South Africa and Uganda, the roles that these decisions play in political stability, and the potential for political bias …


African Judicial Review, The Use Of Comparative African Jurisprudence, And The Judicialization Of Politics, Joseph M. Isanga Mar 2018

African Judicial Review, The Use Of Comparative African Jurisprudence, And The Judicialization Of Politics, Joseph M. Isanga

Joseph Isanga

This Article examines African constitutional courts’ jurisprudence—that is, jurisprudence of courts that exercise judicial review—and demonstrates the increasing role of sub-Saharan Africa’s constitutional courts in the development of policy, a phenomenon commonly referred to as 'judicialization of politics' or a country’s 'judicialization project.' This Article explores the jurisprudence of constitutional courts in select African countries and specifically focuses on the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, and presupposes that although judges often take a positivist approach to adjudication, they do impact policy nevertheless. The use of judicial review in Africa has been painfully slow, …


Revolution Or Continuity? Bank Hamizrachi's Role In The Development Of Judicial Review Models In Israel מהפכה או המשכיות?: מקומו של פסק דין בנק המזרחי בהתפתחות המודלים של ביקורת שיפוטית בישראל, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Dec 2017

Revolution Or Continuity? Bank Hamizrachi's Role In The Development Of Judicial Review Models In Israel מהפכה או המשכיות?: מקומו של פסק דין בנק המזרחי בהתפתחות המודלים של ביקורת שיפוטית בישראל, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

This article examines the role of the Bank Hamizrachi case in the development of models of judicial review in Israel. The article analyzes the developments over the years in the attitude of the case-law toward the various models of judicial review: from the era of parliamentary sovereignty; through the Bergman case, which created a model of semi-procedural judicial review stemming from procedural constitutional entrenchment; and the Nimrodi case, which recognized the procedural model a few years before Bank Hamizrachi, which in turn, created the substantive constitutional model; to the Quantinsky ruling in the matter of a multi-apartment tax, which was …


The Amendment Effect, Jonathan L. Marshfield Dec 2017

The Amendment Effect, Jonathan L. Marshfield

Jonathan Marshfield

Conventional theories of constitutional design suggest that frequent formal amendment of a constitution’s text likely has a restraining effect on the practice of judicial review. On these theories, courts are more likely to favor the status quo when construing a constitution that is amended frequently, and more likely to issue transformative rulings when a constitution is difficult to amend. This Article investigates these claims by analyzing an original data-set of hand-coded opinions from state high courts in the United States. Because state constitutional amendment rates vary widely, these data provide a meaningful opportunity to explore how judges practice judicial review …