Law Commons^™

The Living Constitution: Why The Supreme Court Must Part Ways With Exclusionary Eminent Domain, Aaron Mackay

Indiana Law Journal

The Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement for takings is no longer a requirement at all. Instead, the meaning of “public use” has been expanded far beyond its original intent and public understanding. The broadening of the “public use” requirement reached its breaking point in Kelo. Since Kelo, state legislatures have responded by restricting eminent domain use to remove “blighted” areas. In effect, contemporary eminent domain reduces the availability of affordable housing, which has exacerbated the affordable housing crisis. This Note explores a constitutionally permissible re-working of the eminent domain doctrine to encourage the provision of affordable housing. Interpreting the “public …

The Roberts Court’S Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence And The Reemergence Of State Authoritarian Enclaves, Reginald Oh

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.

Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, …

Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Global Rise Of Judicial Review Since 1945, Steven G. Calabresi

Catholic University Law Review

This article expands upon the theory put forth in Professor Bruce Ackerman’s book, Revolutionary Constitutions: Charismatic Leadership and the Rule of Law, in which he posits that twentieth century revolutions in a variety of countries led to the constitutionalization of charisma, thus binding countries to the written constitutions established by their revolutionary leaders.

Constitutional law scholar, Steven G. Calabresi, argues here that world constitutionalism, in fact, existed prior to 1945, and what is especially striking about the post-1945 experience is that the constitutionalism of charisma included not only the adoption of written constitutions, but also the adoption of meaningful …

Clashing Canons And The Contract Clause, T. Leigh Anenson, Jennifer K. Gershberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article is the first in-depth examination of substantive canons that judges use to interpret public pension legislation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The resolution of constitutional controversies concerning pension reform will have a profound influence on government employment. The assessment begins with a general discussion of these interpretive techniques before turning to their operation in public pension litigation. It concentrates on three clashing canons: the remedial (purpose) canon, the “no contract” canon (otherwise known as the unmistakability doctrine), and the constitutional avoidance canon. For these three canons routinely employed in pension law, there …

Expanding The Administrative Record: Using Pretext To Show "Bad Faith Or Improper Behavior", Laura Boyer

University of Colorado Law Review

This Comment argues that courts should more readily permit extra-record discovery when preliminary signs of pretext strongly suggest "bad faith and improper behavior" by agency decision-makers. 3 1 Section L.A sets the scene by describing the basic mechanics of litigation challenging agency decisions. Section I.B shifts focus by examining two recent Supreme Court decisions that illustrate the Court's struggle to review executive action where an agency seems to have offered a pretextual justification. Part II then shows how agencies' reliance on pretextual justifications is becoming a growing and serious problem-especially within the Trump Administration-and describes a 2017 decision by the …

State Courts And Democratic Theory: Toward A Theory Of State Constitutional Judicial Review, David Schultz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Asylum Makeover: Chevron Deference, The Self-Referral And Review Authority, Jessica Senat

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of A Little Judiciary: A Textual And Constitutional Foundation For Chevron, Terence J. Mccarrick Jr.

San Diego Law Review

This Article hopes to help fill that “important gap in the administrative law literature.” And it proceeds in three parts. Part II offers a brief history of the Chevron doctrine and its discontents. It traces the doctrine’s origin and scope and ends by articulating the textualist and originalist critique of Chevron described above. Part III grapples with that criticism and offers a textualist and originalist defense of Chevron. Section III.A describes the textual footing for Chevron in the APA and argues that Chevron—if not commanded by the APA—does not upset the role it envisions for courts. Section III.B describes the …

Unreasonable Disagreement?: Judicial–Executive Exchanges About Charter Reasonableness In The Harper Era, Matthew A. Hennigar

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Assessments of “reasonableness” are central to adjudicating claims under several Charter rights and the section 1 “reasonable limits” clause. By comparing Supreme Court of Canada rulings to facta submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Court, this article examines the federal government’s success under Prime Minister Harper at persuading the Supreme Court of Canada that its Charter infringements in the area of criminal justice policy are reasonable, and when they fail to do so, on what grounds. The evidence reveals that the Conservative government adopted a consistently defensive posture in court, never conceding that a law was unreasonable, …

Introduction: Is The Supreme Court Failing At Its Job, Or Are We Failing At Ours?, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political …

Thinking About The Supreme Court's Successes And Failures, Erwin Chemerinsky

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court often has failed at its most important tasks and at the most important times. I set out this thesis at the beginning the book:

To be clear, I am not saying that the Supreme Court has failed at these crucial tasks every time. Making a case against the Supreme Court does not require taking such an extreme position. I also will talk about areas where the Court has succeeded in protecting minorities and in enforcing the limits of the Constitution. My claim is that the Court has often failed where and when it has been most needed. …

Declarations Of Unconstitutionality In India And The U.K.: Comparing The Space For Political Response, Chintan Chandrachud

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Justice-As-Fairness As Judicial Guiding Principle: Remembering John Rawls And The Warren Court, Michael Anthony Lawrence

Brooklyn Law Review

The decade-and-a-half period when Earl Warren served as the fourteenth Chief Justice (1953–1969) was marked by numerous landmark rulings in the areas of racial justice, criminal procedure, reproductive autonomy, First Amendment freedom of speech, association, and religion, voting rights, and more. These decisions led to positive, fundamental changes in the lives of millions of less advantaged Americans who had been historically disfavored because of their race, nationality, gender, socioeconomic class, or political views. The legacy of the Warren Court is one of an institution committed to “a dedication in the law to the timeless ideals of ‘human dignity, individual rights, …

Constitutional Avoidance As Interpretation And As Remedy, Eric S. Fish

Michigan Law Review

In a number of recent landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has used the canon of constitutional avoidance to essentially rewrite laws. Formally, the avoidance canon is understood as a method for resolving interpretive ambiguities: if there are two equally plausible readings of a statute, and one of them raises constitutional concerns, judges are instructed to choose the other one. Yet in challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and other major statutes, the Supreme Court has used this canon to adopt interpretations that are not plausible. Jurists, scholars, and legal commentators have criticized …

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act And The Separation Of Powers, Scott A. Boykin

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power, Michael Kagan

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have reaffirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This Essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

Three Variations Of The Supreme Court's Legal Mind, Albert Lebowitz

Akron Law Review

With their independence, the Justices emerged, not, as Madison imagined them, a unified definition of reason but with diverging strains of legal mindedness that, as they almost inevitably clashed with each other, developed that added strength which emerges from dialectic. Madison's vision may have been too simple.

Constitutional theory is heavily concentrated in the area of judicial review, and the three issues raised in Marbury v. Madison are still subjects of heated debate and controversy. It is remarkable how topical this opinion remains.

Can The Eu Be A Constitutional System Without Universal Access To Judical Review, Brian Libgober

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Comment engages with a central dilemma about the legal order of the European Union: is the EU a constitutional system, a treaty system, or a hybrid system for which we must develop a new conceptual vocabulary? Besides intrinsic interest, resolving this categorization problem is important for deciding a number of issues in European Union law. For example, are legal strategies that are normally available to parties in international law viable in the European legal order? Should Community law be supreme over national law? If so, what limits should be placed on that supremacy, and “who should have the ultimate …

Agency Adjudication And Judicial Nondelegation: An Article Iii Canon, Mila Sohoni

Northwestern University Law Review

The rules governing judicial review of adjudication by federal agencies are insensitive to a critical separation of powers principle. Article III jurisprudence requires different treatment of agency adjudication depending on whether the agency is adjudicating a “private right” or a “public right.” When agencies adjudicate private rights, review of the agency adjudication must be available to an Article III court on a direct appellate basis. In contrast, Article III jurisprudence does not require review to an Article III court on a direct appellate basis of agency adjudications of purely public rights. That means that federal courts reviewing agency adjudications of …

What's A Lower Court To Do? Limiting Lawrence V. Texas And The Right To Sexual Autonomy, John Tuskey

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitution Making In The Countries Of Former Soviet Dominance: Current Development, Rett R. Ludwikowski

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Democracy-Assisting Judicial Review And The Challenge Of Partisan Polarization, Terri Peretti

Utah Law Review

This Article recommends abandoning the democracy-assisting idea and instead exploring ways to prevent the Court from being enlisted in extreme and unrepresentative causes. Reform ideas should focus on increasing and regularizing turnover on the Court and encouraging the selection of more representative Justices, an outcome made more likely by increasing the representativeness of the elected officials who choose the Justices. Absent a crisis, of course, it is highly unlikely that any such reforms will be adopted. Nonetheless, it is a worthwhile exercise to think about how to enhance representational and consensus-building processes in the presence of growing partisan polarization. And …

When Congress Practices Medicine: How Congressional Legislation Of Medical Judgment May Infringe A Fundamental Right, Shannon L. Pedersen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Corruption And Constitutionalizing Democracy, Deborah Hellman

Michigan Law Review

The central front in the battle over campaign finance laws is the definition of corruption. The Supreme Court has allowed restrictions on the giving and spending of money in connection with elections only when they serve to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. The constitutionality of such laws, therefore, depends on how the Court defines corruption. Over the years, campaign finance cases have conceived of corruption in both broad and narrow terms, with the most recent cases defining it especially narrowly. While supporters and critics of campaign finance laws have argued for and against these different formulations, both sides …

State Court Invalidation Of A Federal Regulation: Thomas V. North Carolina Department Of Human Resources, Gary L. Cole

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein

Michigan Law Review

The doctrine treating federal preemption of state law has been plagued by uncertainty and confusion. Part of the problem is that courts purport to interpret congressional intent when often Congress has never considered the particular preemption question at issue. This Article suggests that courts deciding preemption cases should take seriously a commonly articulated rationale for the federalization of law: the need to coordinate applicable legal standards in order to facilitate a national market or to otherwise provide clear guidance to parties regarding the laws that apply to their conduct. In situations where federal law can serve a coordinating function but …

The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The October 2008 Term: First Amendment And Then Some, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

Liberals must acknowledge a dirty little secret about American constitutional law; a secret that the Warren Court made apparent, though it had existed from the day John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review in a Constitution that says nothing about it. The secret is that there is no serious theory explaining or justifying what courts actually do when they strike down a statute as unconstitutional.

The Warren years were enormously important in moving the country forward. I do not know what we would have done without the wisdom and courage of the Court. But when you start looking for …

But How Will The People Know? Public Opinion As A Meager Influence In Shaping Contemporary Supreme Court Decision Making, Tom Goldstein, Amy Howe

Michigan Law Review

Chief Justice John Roberts famously described the ideal Supreme Court Justice as analogous to a baseball umpire, who simply "applies" the rules, rather than making them. Roberts promised to "remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." At her own recent confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan demurred, opining that Roberts's metaphor might erroneously suggest that "everything is clear-cut, and that there's no judgment in the process." Based on his 2009 book, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution, Barry Friedman …