Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (3)
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Courts (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
-
- Agency (1)
- American Studies (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Election Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- History (1)
- Intellectual History (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Political History (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Second Amendment (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Article Iii And The Political Question Doctrine, Scott Dodson
Article Iii And The Political Question Doctrine, Scott Dodson
Northwestern University Law Review
Courts and commentators have often sourced the political question doctrine in Article III, a repository of other separation-of-powers doctrines applicable to the federal courts. Rucho v. Common Cause, a blockbuster political question case decided in 2019, explicitly tied the doctrine to Article III. But the historical development of the doctrine undermines the depth of that connection. Further, sourcing the doctrine in Article III leads to some very odd effects, including leaving state courts free to answer federal political questions. This Article argues that the source of the political question doctrine is in substantive law, not in Article III. Such …
Brief Of Complex Litigation Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Myriam E. Gilles
Brief Of Complex Litigation Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Myriam E. Gilles
Amicus Briefs
The amici are law professors who teach and write in the field of federal civil procedure and complex litigation. Amici share an interest in presenting this Court with an impartial view on the function of the class action and its relationship to the law of Article III justiciability to inform the question presented in this case.
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett
The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Standing doctrine is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and an adversary process of adjudication. But recently, it has begun serving a new and unintended purpose: transferring federal claims from federal to state court. Paradoxically, current standing doctrine assigns a growing class of federal claims - despite Congressional intent to the contrary - to the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Even then, only in some states, and only to the extent authorized by state law.
This paradox arises at the intersection of three distinct areas of doctrine:
(1) a newly sharpened requirement of concrete injury under Article III that …
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
Procedures For The Enforcement Of New York Convention Awards, George A. Bermann
Procedures For The Enforcement Of New York Convention Awards, George A. Bermann
Faculty Scholarship
Article III of the New York Convention expresses the Contracting States’ core obligation under the Convention, namely the obligation to enforce Convention awards, absent a basis in the Convention for declining to do so. At the same time, the Convention drafters chose not to prescribe the manner in which such enforcement should take place. Article III expressly reserved the matter to the law of the place where enforcement under the Convention is sought.
Enforcement was to be achieved “in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon.” The only limitations on the freedom …