Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Civil Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Courts (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Judges (2)
-
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law and Economics (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal Remedies (2)
- Rule of Law (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Torts (2)
- Agency (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Education (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Other Law (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Absolute Publishing Power And Bulletproof Immunity: How Section 230 Shields Internet Service Providers From Liability And Makes It Impossible To Protect Your Reputation Online, Victoria Anderson
Seattle University Law Review SUpra
No abstract provided.
Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose
Seattle University Law Review
Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Seattle University Law Review
Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.
Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …