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

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 Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward Oct 2016

The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses …


The Role Of Courts In Improving The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Nov 2015

The Role Of Courts In Improving The Legislative Process, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

In recent years, there has been growing and widespread discontent with the state of the legislative process in many legislatures. At the same time, there is an emerging trend of courts exercising judicial review of the legislative process. Against this backdrop, this article explores the question of what can be the role of courts in efforts to improve the legislative process. The article offers a fresh perspective on the problems in the legislative process and their causes. It then develops a novel argument – that does not rest upon a cynical view of legislatures, nor on a rosy picture of …


ג'ון הארט גרוניס?: פסיקתו של הנשיא גרוניס לאור התיאוריה החוקתית של אילי (John Hart Grunis?: The Jurisprudence Of Chief Justice Grunis In Light Of Ely's Constitutional Theory), Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Nov 2015

ג'ון הארט גרוניס?: פסיקתו של הנשיא גרוניס לאור התיאוריה החוקתית של אילי (John Hart Grunis?: The Jurisprudence Of Chief Justice Grunis In Light Of Ely's Constitutional Theory), Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

This Article analyzes the jurisprudence of CJ Grunis, the President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in light of John Hart Ely's constitutional theory. In an earlier case, during CJ Barak's Presidency, Justice Grunis publicly endorsed Ely's constitutional theory—which has put him at odds with the previous two Presidents of the Court, CJs Barak and Beinisch. Against this backdrop, this Article examines whether (or to what extent) Ely's theory can explain Justice Grunis's decisions as President of the Court. The Article argues that Ely's theory provides a more promising focal-point for evaluating President Grunis's public-law decisions than simplistic characterization such …


The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward Feb 2014

The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses …


Toward Adequacy, Sarah L. Brinton Mar 2013

Toward Adequacy, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

Each year, hundreds of people, companies, organizations, and associations sue the federal government for injuries they have suffered at the hands of federal agencies. Such suits are often brought under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which Congress enacted expressly to allow broad access to courts in an age of increasing administrative agency action. By the terms of the APA itself, all final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court is reviewable under the APA.

But the very language meant to welcome such suits into court also acts as a …


Legislative Supremacy In The United States?: Rethinking The Enrolled Bill Doctrine, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov Dec 2008

Legislative Supremacy In The United States?: Rethinking The Enrolled Bill Doctrine, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

This Article revisits the “enrolled bill” doctrine which requires courts to accept the signatures of the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate on the “enrolled bill” as unimpeachable evidence that a bill has been constitutionally enacted. It argues that this time-honored doctrine has far-reaching ramifications that were largely overlooked in existing discussions. In addition to reexamining the soundness of this doctrine’s main rationales, the Article introduces two major novel arguments against the doctrine. First, it argues that the doctrine amounts to an impermissible delegation of both judicial and lawmaking powers to the legislative officers of Congress. Second, …