Law Commons^™

Marbury And Judicial Deference: The Shadow Of Whittington V. Polk And The Maryland Judiciary Battle, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

On the 200th anniversary of Whittington and approaching the 200th anniversary of Marbury, this article revisits these two decisions and challenges legal scholars' assumptions that they were such strong precedents for judicial review.⁵ When one takes into account the broader contexts, both decisions were in fact judicial capitulations to aggressive legislatures and executives. The Maryland General Court asserted its judicial supremacy only in dicta, and the court failed to enforce judicial supremacy when it was legally justified. This article picks apart the court's reasoning step by step, using Whittington to illuminate Marbury and Marbury to illuminate Whittington. …

Retaining Bargained-For Finality And Judicial Review In Labor Arbitration Decisions: Dual Interests Preserved In Major League Baseball Players Association V. Garvey - Major League Baseball Players Assn. V. Garvey, Emily J. Huitsing

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Arbitration has for years been the principal means of labor dispute resolution. As a part of labor contracts, workers agree to arbitrate disputes with their employers, bargaining for this forum as their choice method of dispute resolution. Occasionally, however, the decision of an arbitrator strays far from what a court believes the outcome of the dispute between employer and employee should be. In these cases, a conflict arises between the finality and stability of the bargained-for arbitrator's decision and the need for judicial upset of clearly errant arbitral decisions

A Grand Theory Of Constitutional Law, Erwin Chemerinsky

Michigan Law Review

Jeb Rubenfeld's book is nothing if not ambitious. In just 250 pages, Rubenfeld seeks to: justify the authority of the Constitution, establish the legitimacy of judicial review, resolve the countermajoritarian difficulty, offer a method of constitutional interpretation and judicial review, uphold the constitutionality of affirmative action, and explain the legitimacy of judicial protection of privacy, including abortion rights. Scattered throughout the book, he offers philosophical insights as to the meaning of life, discussing a central issue for all of us: dealing with time. Rubenfeld's book is elegant, relying on history, continental philosophy, game theory, and even Supreme Court cases, to …

Taking Its Toll: Partisan Judging And Judicial Review, Jeff Broadwater

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Spurious Interpretation Redux: Mead And The Shrinking Domain Of Statutory Ambiguity, Michael P. Healy

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In skewering the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Mead Corp., Justice Scalia's rhetoric is exceptional. He derides the decision as "one of the most significant opinions ever rendered by the Court dealing with the judicial review of administrative action. Its consequences will be enormous, and almost uniformly bad." Although Justice Scalia objects to Mead's new and uncertain limits on the applicability of the Chevron doctrine, this Article will focus instead on how Mead employs a method of interpretation imputing a clear intent to Congress, and authorizes courts to discern statutory meaning without strong deference to …

The New Deal ‘Constitutional Revolution’ As An Historical Problem, Edward A. Purcell Jr.

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Courts In Health Care Rationing: The German Model, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Scholarly Articles

Virtually every country in the world is currently attempting to find ways to ration health care services in order to control exploding health care costs. In some countries the courts play a role in overseeing the rationing of health care. This article examines the role that the courts play in the United States in health care rationing in various contexts and programs. It then goes on to present the German social courts as an alternative model for judicial oversight of health care rationing that is both responsive to the rights of health care consumers and professionals and sensitive to the …

Judicial Review Of Icann Domain Name Dispute Decisions, David E. Sorkin

Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Direct Judicial Review Of Pto Decisions: Jurisdictional Proposals, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") decisions is complex-- perhaps more than that of any other agency. One source of complexity is that courts review its decisions both collaterally and directly.

One goal of this article is to map possible routes to judicial review and suggest strategies for avoiding jurisdictional uncertainties and delay. The core thesis of this article, however, is that parties should not need to cope with arcane review schemes. Direct PTO review can and ought to be simplified. This can be accomplished by adjusting the Federal Circuit's original and appellate jurisdiction.

Chevron Deference To The Uspto At The Federal Circuit, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Courts have long deferred to agency views of law, but they have also often refused. The Federal Circuit, too, defers on some occasions but not others. This paper examines the apparent inconsistency in its cases.

Antiterrorism Military Commissions: The Ad Hoc Dod Rules Of Procedure, Jordan J. Paust

Michigan Journal of International Law

While the article Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality was set for publication, the Department of Defense formally issued its first set of Procedures for Trials by Military Commission of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. The President's November 13th Military Order had set up several per se violations of international law. Instead of attempting to avoid them, the DOD Order of March 21, 2002 continued the violations, set up additional violations of international law, and created various rules of procedure and evidence that, if not per se violative of international law, are highly problematic. This is a …

Doing Our Politics In Court: Gerrymandering, "Fair Representation" And An Exegesis Into The Judicial Role, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Toward A Jurisprudence Of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Michael B. Abramowicz

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In his book, The Cost-Benefit State, democratic theorist Cass Sunstein urges regulatory agencies to make decisions based on numerical assessments of regulatory consequences, factoring in variables ranging from effects on consumer prices to lives saved. In this Review, I seek to illustrate Sunstein's conception of cost-benefit analysis and critique this conception by suggesting that cost-benefit analysis could serve a more important role than Sunstein would allow. I also argue for a more active judicial role in scrutinizing agency actions than Sunstein would recommend, though not necessarily a less deferential one. In Part I of this review, I outline Sunstein's defense …

Judicial Activism: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

No matter how judges are selected, sooner or later some unfortunate candidate will be labeled a "judicial activist." One has to wonder: Does the term have any identifiable core meaning? Or is it just an all-purpose term of opprobrium, reflecting whatever brand of judicial behavior the speaker regards as particularly pernicious? Implicit in this question are several important issues about the role of courts in our democratic society.

I take my definition from Judge Richard Posner, who describes activist decisions as those that expand judicial power over other branches of the national government or over state governments. Unlike other uses …

Review Of Rulemaking, Participation And The Limits Of Public Law In The Usa And Europe By Theodora Th. Ziamou And Review Of Governing By Numbers: Delegated Legislation And Everyday Policy-Making, By Edward C. Page, Francesca Bignami

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This article reviews two books: Rulemaking, Participation and the Limits of Public Law in the USA and Europe by Theodora Th. Ziamou and Governing by Numbers by Edward C. Page. In Rulemaking, Ziamou compares the law of rulemaking in the United States, Germany, Greece, and England. Ziamou covers the distinction between administrative rules and other administrative acts, the constitutional law of rulemaking, rulemaking procedure, the ability of private organizations to adopt rules that bind themselves and third parties, and judicial review. Readers are left with a better understanding of American and European rulemaking but may not be convinced that Europe …

Lincoln, Marshall And The Judicial Role, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Abraham Lincoln understood judicial activism. For Lincoln, the paradigm of the unrestrained Supreme Court was the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Lincoln saw the "illegitimacy" of Dred Scott not in that the Supreme Court had overturned an act of Congress. It was, rather, that the Supreme Court, in the guise of making a legal decision, instead made a political decision. Even worse, it was a political decision that sought to redefine the polity in fundamental, constitutional terms. Lincoln's position echoed the most eloquent articulation of judicial review ever made by the Court: in Marbury vs. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall …

Introductory Remarks: The Burden Of Judicial Bypass Proceedings , Ann Shalleck

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

A Goldilocks Account Of Judicial Review?, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

According to Professor Christopher Eisgruber, judicial review of the sort embedded in United States constitutional practice is a practical mechanism for implementing the Constitution's commitment to self-government. "The justices ... make a distinctive contribution to representative democracy" because they are "better positioned [than elected officials] to represent the people's convictions about what is right." Judges can articulate "a conception of justice with which Americans in general [can] plausibly identify themselves. "

I will focus here on two themes in Professor Eisgruber's argument. The first theme can be found in many works of constitutional theory - the construction of a strong …

Are Judges Motivated To Create "Good" Securities Fraud Doctrine?, Donald C. Langevoort

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

‘How Do Judges Maximize? (The Same Way Everybody Else Does – Boundedly): Rules of Thumb in Securities Fraud Opinions’, by Stephen M. Bainbridge and G. Mitu Gulati, confronts the reader with a theory about judicial behavior in the face of complex, "unexciting" cases such as those involving securities fraud. The story is simple: few judges find any opportunity for personal satisfaction or enhanced reputation here, so they simply try to minimize cognitive effort, off-loading much of the work that has to be done to their clerks. The evidence that Bainbridge and Gulati offer is the creation of some ten or …

Environmental Law And The Supreme Court: Three Years Later, Richard J. Lazarus

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In my Garrison Lecture three years ago, I surveyed the environmental law decisions of the Supreme Court between 1970 and 1999. I commented on which Justices had been more or less influential in shaping the Court's decisions and, even more provocatively (if not foolishly), sought to "score" the individual Justices on their responsiveness to environmental protection concerns based on their votes cast in a subset of those cases. The broader thesis of the lecture, however, was that there is something distinctively "environmental" about environmental law and that the Court's increasing inability to appreciate that dimension was leading to more poorly-reasoned …

The Limits Of Being "Present At The Creation", Roy A. Schotland

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Having been invited late to this Symposium and having read fewer than all essays, I offer, (with deep appreciation for the invitation), only mini-comments on three of the many valuable contributions: the essays by Professors Persily, Hasen, and Gerken. But first, at risk of pedantry, may I suggest changing the Symposium's title to something like "Baker and its Progeny .... (or "Baker, doughnuts, and holes"?). Most of the treatment seems to be about the progeny, as surely it should be. While of course everyone knows how far Baker went, what Reynolds did, and what was not done until after Reynolds, …

Law And Prudence In The Law Of Justiciability: The Transformation And Disappearance Of The Political Question Doctrine, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Essay develops the foregoing argument by examining, in Section I, the transformation of the political question doctrine from Baker v. Carr through Walter Nixon v. United States. Section II charts a similar, perhaps even more dramatic transformation of the law of standing. Section I then examines Bush v. Gore, explaining how older doctrines of standing and political questions might have been thought relevant there. It argues as well that the very fact that those doctrines went unmentioned by the Court shows why we must take a historically grounded view of justiciability doctrines. Section IV sketches the historical settings in …

Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

Ambiguity serves a legislative purpose. When legislators perceive a need to compromise they can, among other strategies, "obscur[e] the particular meaning of a statute, allowing different legislators to read the obscured provisions the way they wish." Legislative ambiguity reaches its peak when a statute is so elegantly crafted that it credibly supports multiple inconsistent interpretations by legislators and judges. Legislators with opposing views can then claim that they have prevailed in the legislative arena, and, as long as courts continue to issue conflicting interpretations, these competing claims of legislative victory remain credible. Formal legal doctrine, in contrast, frames legislative ambiguity …

Toward A Jurisprudence Of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Michael Abramowicz

Michigan Law Review

In 1989, Cass Sunstein published an article entitled On the Costs and Benefits of Aggressive Judicial Review of Agency Action. Sunstein apparently meant the words "costs" and "benefits" in an informal sense, as the article considered the advantages and disadvantages of aggressive judicial review without pretense of explicit quantification. That article was several generations ago in Sunstein scholarship, almost 100 articles and over a dozen books. The central concerns of that article, however, are relevant to an assessment of Sunstein's latest book, whose title, The Cost-Benefit State, uses the words "costs" and "benefits" as labels for quantitative assessments of the …

Constitutional Courts And Parliamentary Democracy (Special Issue On Delegation), Alec Stone Sweet

Alec Stone Sweet

No abstract provided.