Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (27)
- University of Colorado Law School (15)
- Pepperdine University (14)
- Duke Law (11)
- Georgetown University Law Center (11)
-
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (10)
- Columbia Law School (7)
- Selected Works (6)
- Boston University School of Law (5)
- SelectedWorks (5)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Cornell University Law School (3)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (3)
- Notre Dame Law School (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Kentucky (2)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (2)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (2)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (2)
- American University Washington College of Law (1)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (1)
- Golden Gate University School of Law (1)
- New York Law School (1)
- Osgoode Hall Law School of York University (1)
- Penn State Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- The Peter A. Allard School of Law (1)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Scholarship (22)
- Michigan Law Review (20)
- Publications (13)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (11)
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (11)
-
- Articles (7)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (7)
- All Faculty Scholarship (4)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Indiana Law Journal (3)
- Journal Articles (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
- Scholarly Works (3)
- Touro Law Review (3)
- Kentucky Law Journal (2)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (2)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (2)
- Alec Stone Sweet (1)
- All Faculty Publications (1)
- Arbitration Law Review (1)
- Articles & Chapters (1)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (1)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (1)
- Cleveland State Law Review (1)
- Craig Martin (1)
- Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses (1)
- Edsel F Tupaz (1)
- Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository (1)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (1)
- Faculty Publications (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 156
Full-Text Articles in Law
Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent
Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Judge James A. Wynn, Originalism, And The Juridical/Judicial Role, Michael E. Tigar
Judge James A. Wynn, Originalism, And The Juridical/Judicial Role, Michael E. Tigar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Dysfunction, Deference, And Judicial Review, Barry Friedman, Margaret H. Lemos
Dysfunction, Deference, And Judicial Review, Barry Friedman, Margaret H. Lemos
Faculty Scholarship
This symposium poses a provocative question: Should judges exercising the power of judicial review defer to the political branches as a means of giving voice to the “will of the people”? The inquiry assumes a connection between majority will and the outputs of the political branches—a connection we argue is frayed, at best, in the current political context.
In the first part of this Essay, we highlight how well-known aspects of our political system—ranging from representational distortions in federal and state governments to the relationship between partisan polarization and the behavior of elected officials—call into question whether political outcomes reliably …
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai
Faculty Scholarship
In The Specter of Dictatorship,1 David Driesen has written a learned, lively book about the dangers of autocracy, weaving together incisive observations about democratic backsliding in other countries with a piercing critique of American teetering on the brink of executive authoritarianism at home. Driesen draws deeply and faithfully on the extant literature on comparative constitutionalism and democracy studies. He also builds on the work of scholars of the American political system who have documented the largely one-way transfer of power over foreign affairs to the executive branch. Driesen's thesis has a slight originalist cast, holding that "the Founders aimed …
Judicial Deference Of The Board Of Immigration Appeals’ Regulatory Interpretations In Light Of Kisor V. Wilkie, Melissa Fullmer
Judicial Deference Of The Board Of Immigration Appeals’ Regulatory Interpretations In Light Of Kisor V. Wilkie, Melissa Fullmer
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming.
The Constitution And Democracy In Troubled Times, John M. Greabe
The Constitution And Democracy In Troubled Times, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
Does textualism and originalism approach positively impact democracy?
The Future Of Supreme Court Reform, Ganesh Sitaraman, Daniel Epps
The Future Of Supreme Court Reform, Ganesh Sitaraman, Daniel Epps
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
For a brief moment in the fall of 2020, structural reform of the Supreme Court seemed like a tangible possibility. After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, some prominent Democratic politicians and liberal commentators warmed to the idea of expanding the Court to respond to Republicans’ rush to confirm a nominee before the election, despite their refusal four years prior to confirm Judge Merrick Garland on the ground that it was an election year. Though Democratic candidate Joe Biden won the Presidency in November, Democrats lost seats in the House and have a majority in the Senate …
Prospective Overruling Unravelled, Samuel Beswick
Prospective Overruling Unravelled, Samuel Beswick
All Faculty Publications
Judges have a dual role: they decide cases and they determine the law. These functions are conventionally understood to be intertwined: adjudication leads to case law, and disputes over judge-made laws lead to adjudication. Because judgments involve the resolution of past disputes, judge-made law is retrospective. The retrospective nature of judicial law-making can seem to work an injustice in hard cases. It appears unfair and inefficient for novel judicial decisions to apply to conduct occurring prior to the date judgment is handed down. A proposed solution is to separate the law-making and adjudicatory functions of courts. This is the technique …
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
In Defense Of (Circuit) Court-Packing, Xiao Wang
In Defense Of (Circuit) Court-Packing, Xiao Wang
Michigan Law Review Online
Proposals to pack the Supreme Court have gained steam recently. Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg endorsed a court-packing plan at the start of his campaign, and several other candidates also indicated a willingness to consider such a plan, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Legal scholars have similarly called upon Congress to increase the size of the Supreme Court, particularly following the heated confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. These suggestions for Court reform have only gotten more pronounced with the recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the subsequent nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and the …
Coordinating Injunctions, Bert I. Huang
Coordinating Injunctions, Bert I. Huang
Faculty Scholarship
Consider this scenario: Two judges with parallel cases are each ready to issue an injunction. But their injunctions may clash, ordering incompatible actions by the defendant. Each judge has written an opinion justifying her own intended relief, but the need to avoid conflicting injunctions presses her to make a further choice – “Should I issue the injunction or should I stay it for now?” Each must make this decision in anticipation of what the other will do.
This Article analyzes such a judicial coordination problem, drawing on recent examples including the DACA cases and the “sanctuary cities” cases. It then …
Our Administered Constitution: Administrative Constitutionalism From The Founding To The Present, Sophia Z. Lee
Our Administered Constitution: Administrative Constitutionalism From The Founding To The Present, Sophia Z. Lee
All Faculty Scholarship
This article argues that administrative agencies have been primary interpreters and implementers of the federal Constitution throughout the history of the United States, although the scale and scope of this "administrative constitutionalism" has changed significantly over time as the balance of opportunities and constraints has shifted. Courts have nonetheless cast an increasingly long shadow over the administered Constitution. In part, this is because of the well-known expansion of judicial review in the 20th century. But the shift has as much to do with changes in the legal profession, legal theory, and lawyers’ roles in agency administration. The result is that …
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Stacking In Criminal Procedure Adjudication;Symposium On Criminal Procedure: Judicial Proceedings, Luke M. Milligan
Luke Milligan
The institutionalist branch of "Law and Courts" studies how judges incorporate institutional constraints into their decision-making processes. Congressional constraints on judicial review, as the literature currently stands, fall into one of two general classes: overrides and Court-curbing measures. This taxonomy, however, is incomplete. Neither overrides nor curbing measures are needed to explain the not uncommon situation where a policy-oriented Justice deviates from a preferred vote based on the belief that such a vote will prompt Congress to alter an "insulated base rule" in a way that disrupts the Justice's larger policy agenda. An "insulated base rule" is a Congressional policy …
Theorizing The Judicialization Of International Relations, Karen J. Alter, Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Laurence R. Helfer
Theorizing The Judicialization Of International Relations, Karen J. Alter, Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Laurence R. Helfer
Faculty Scholarship
This article introduces a Thematic Section and theorizes the multiple ways that judicializing international relations shifts power away from national executives and legislatures toward litigants, judges, arbitrators, and other nonstate decision-makers. We identify two preconditions for judicialization to occur—(1) delegation to an adjudicatory body charged with applying designated legal rules, and (2) legal rights-claiming by actors who bring—or threaten to bring—a complaint to one or more of these bodies. We classify the adjudicatory bodies that do and do not contribute to judicializing international relations, including but not limited to international courts. We then explain how rights-claiming initiates a process for …
Of Judicial Review, High Standards And Edward S. Godfrey, David P. Cluchey
Of Judicial Review, High Standards And Edward S. Godfrey, David P. Cluchey
Maine Law Review
At the end of 1994 Dean Edward S. Godfrey III stepped down from his teaching position as Professor Emeritus of the University of Maine School of Law. In honor of his service to Maine’s only law school, to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, to the Maine Bar, and to the people of the State of Maine, the Board and Staff dedicate Volume 47 of the Maine Law Review to Dean Edward Godfrey. Reviews by Maine Law School faculty members of Dean Godfrey’s Law Court decisions in several areas of the law follow.
The Pragmatism Of Interpretation: A Review Of Richard A. Posner, The Federal Judiciary, Amul R. Thapar, Benjamin Beaton
The Pragmatism Of Interpretation: A Review Of Richard A. Posner, The Federal Judiciary, Amul R. Thapar, Benjamin Beaton
Michigan Law Review
A review of Richard A. Posner, The Federal Judiciary.
Still Living After Fifty Years: A Census Of Judicial Review Under The Pennsylvania Constitution Of 1968, Seth F. Kreimer
Still Living After Fifty Years: A Census Of Judicial Review Under The Pennsylvania Constitution Of 1968, Seth F. Kreimer
All Faculty Scholarship
The year 2018 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968. The time seems ripe, therefore, to explore the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review under the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution. This Article constitutes the first such comprehensive exploration.
The Article begins with an historical overview of the evolution of the Pennsylvania Constitution, culminating in the Constitution of 1968. It then presents a census of the 372 cases in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vindicated distinctive Pennsylvania Constitutional rights under the Constitution of 1968.
Analysis of these cases leads to three conclusions:
1. Exercise of independent constitutional …
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew Steilen
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew Steilen
Matthew Steilen
This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …
Courts And Arbitration: Reconciling The Public With The Private, Susan L. Karamanian
Courts And Arbitration: Reconciling The Public With The Private, Susan L. Karamanian
Arbitration Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Power, The Judicial Power Project And The Uk, Paul Craig
Judicial Power, The Judicial Power Project And The Uk, Paul Craig
Articles by Maurer Faculty
It is axiomatic that all power requires justification, and that is equally true for judicial power as for other species thereof. This article is primarily concerned with judicial power in the UK. The subject will be approached through consideration of the Judicial Power Project, which has been critical of the courts, much of this being sharp-edged, and fierce. There is repeated talk of judicial overreach and consequent legitimacy crisis, as the courts are said to encroach on terrain that is properly the preserve of the political branch of government.
It is by the same token important that the critics are …
The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward
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 …
Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett
Against Administrative Judges, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
The single largest cadre of federal adjudicators goes largely ignored by scholars, policymakers, courts, and even litigating parties. These Administrative Judges or “AJs,” often confused with well-known federal Administrative Law Judges or “ALJs,” operate by the thousands in numerous federal agencies. Yet unlike ALJs, the significantly more numerous AJs preside over less formal hearings and have no significant statutory protections to preserve their impartiality. The national press has recently called attention to the alleged unfairness of certain ALJ proceedings, and regulated parties have successfully enjoined agencies’ use of ALJs. While fixes are necessary for ALJ adjudication, any solution that ignores …
Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule
Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule
Michigan Law Review
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts review and set aside agency action that is “arbitrary [and] capricious.” In a common formulation of rationality review, courts must either take a “hard look” at the rationality of agency decisionmaking, or at least ensure that agencies themselves have taken a hard look. We will propose a much less demanding and intrusive interpretation of rationality review—a thin version. Under a robust range of conditions, rational agencies have good reason to decide in a manner that is inaccurate, nonrational, or arbitrary. Although this claim is seemingly paradoxical or internally inconsistent, it simply rests on an …
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
What Judges Say And Do In Deciding National Security Cases: The Example Of The State Secrets Privilege, Anthony John Trenga
Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses
From the criminal trial of Aaron Burr on charges of treason to modern-day litigation involving the CIA, the state secrets privilege presents a thorny issue for federal judges. Judge Trenga examines the legal issues at the heart of this privilege—separation of powers, non-justiciability, evidentiary privilege, national security interests, and military secrets—and the two primary doctrinal tracks judges invoke. Then, based on interviews with thirty-one federal judges, Judge Trenga offers insights into how judges think about applying the state secrets privilege to sensitive material.
How Bayesian Are Judges?, Jack Knight, Mitu Gulati, David F. Levi
How Bayesian Are Judges?, Jack Knight, Mitu Gulati, David F. Levi
Faculty Scholarship
Richard Posner famously modeled judges as Bayesians in his book, How Judges Think? A key element of being Bayesian is that one constantly updates with new information. This model of the judge who is constantly learning and updating, particularly about local conditions, also is one of the reasons why the factual determinations of trial judges are given deference on appeal. But do judges in fact act like Bayesian updaters? Judicial evaluations of search warrant requests for probable cause provides an ideal setting to examine this question because the judges in this context have access to information on how well they …
A Look Back: Developing Indiana Law; Post-Bench Reflections Of An Indiana Supreme Court Justice; Selected Developments In Indiana Administrative Law (1989-2012), Frank Sullivan Jr.
A Look Back: Developing Indiana Law; Post-Bench Reflections Of An Indiana Supreme Court Justice; Selected Developments In Indiana Administrative Law (1989-2012), Frank Sullivan Jr.
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
The Clarity Of Reasonableness Since Dunsmuir: Mission (Mostly) Accomplished, Ryan D. Robb
The Clarity Of Reasonableness Since Dunsmuir: Mission (Mostly) Accomplished, Ryan D. Robb
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
This project develops an interpretive account of the single reasonableness standard as it has evolved in the Canadian Supreme Court case law since its introduction in New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir. My analyses show, contrary to the bulk of the academic commentary, that reasonableness is a clear and coherent standard of review. Specifically I show that in the eyes of the Court, interference owing to unreasonableness is required only when decisions are not justified in the context of the legal framework. Unjustified decisions demand interference because they are arbitrary in the sense that the powers of the …
Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf
Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf
Michael C. Dorf
Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …
Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler
Moral Rights, Judicial Review, And Democracy: A Response To Horacio Spector, Laura S. Underkuffler
Laura S. Underkuffler
No abstract provided.
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew J. Steilen
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew J. Steilen
Journal Articles
This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …