Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Transatlantic Perspective On Judicial Deference In Administrative Law, Maciej Bernatt
Transatlantic Perspective On Judicial Deference In Administrative Law, Maciej Bernatt
Maciej Bernatt
The U.S. concept of judicial deference in administrative law limits the scope of judicial review of administrative agencies’ actions in the light of agencies’ superior expertise and separation of powers arguments. It may serve as an interesting point of reference for the European discussion about adequate institutional balance between administration and courts. The paper analyzes whether there are grounds for the validity of the concept of judicial deference in Continental Europe and in what areas (law, facts or both). As a starting point it is observed that it remains generally accepted in Europe that it is a role of courts …
Captured Legislatures And Public-Interested Courts, Patrick Luff
Captured Legislatures And Public-Interested Courts, Patrick Luff
Patrick A. Luff
According to public choice, the predominant paradigm of modern regulatory theory, legislative activity provides benefits to small, organized interests at the expense of larger groups. In practice, this means that interest groups are often able to benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. This model has been extended to the courts, which are described as implicit or explicit actors in the wealth-transfer process. Applying public-choice theory to the courts, however, overlooks the structural differences between the federal judiciary and Congress, as well as the insights of judicial decisionmaking theory. Not only do judges receive better and more complete …
Bridging The Divide: Finding Common Ground On The Modern Chevron Debate, Nicholas C. Stewart
Bridging The Divide: Finding Common Ground On The Modern Chevron Debate, Nicholas C. Stewart
Nicholas C Stewart
Traditionally, when reviewing an administrative agency’s adjudication or rulemaking under National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U.S. 111 (1944), courts would ask whether the question before them was one of law or a mixed question of law and fact. While the former was accorded no deference, the latter received a great deal. Despite this seemingly simple construct, courts persistently confused questions of law with mixed questions, and vice versa, resulting in the inconsistent application of standards of review. In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court drastically …
The Eroding Preponderance Standard: The Dc Circuit Strikes Back, Robert J. Davis
The Eroding Preponderance Standard: The Dc Circuit Strikes Back, Robert J. Davis
Robert J Davis
The open-ended holding of the United States Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush has given the DC Circuit an enormous degree of discretion in its handling of Guantanamo detention cases. Combined with the monopoly review power over detention cases given to the DC Circuit, the result has been a diminishing and arguably meaningless standard of evidentiary review for detainees. This article examined recent decisions in Al-Latif and Al-Adahi to pierce the veil on the Circuit Court judges who hold the fate of detainees in their hands.
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti
Carrie Leonetti
Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.
Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …
Between Judicial And Legislative Supremacy: A Cautious Defense Of Constrained Judicial Review, Alon Harel, Adam Shinar
Between Judicial And Legislative Supremacy: A Cautious Defense Of Constrained Judicial Review, Alon Harel, Adam Shinar
Alon Harel
This Article explores and evaluates theories that we label “theories of constrained judicial review.” These theories, which include popular constitutionalism, departmentalism, and weak judicial review, challenge both the constitutional supremacy of courts and adopt an intermediate position that grants courts a privileged but not supreme role in interpreting the Constitution.
To evaluate such theories, this Article develops both a negative and a positive argument. It criticizes the existing justifications of constrained judicial review and provides a new justification for such theories. More specifically, we argue that the ultimate justification for constrained judicial review cannot be grounded in instrumentalist or consequentialist …