Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (23)
- Courts (14)
- Supreme Court of the United States (11)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Legislation (7)
-
- Judges (6)
- Legal History (5)
- Law and Politics (4)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (3)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (3)
- President/Executive Department (3)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- International Law (2)
- Legal Biography (2)
- Legal Writing and Research (2)
- Litigation (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Election Law (1)
- European Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- International Trade Law (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (10)
- Georgetown University Law Center (8)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (3)
- University of Miami Law School (3)
- Cleveland State University (2)
-
- Cornell University Law School (2)
- University of Colorado Law School (2)
- University of Kentucky (2)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (2)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Duke Law (1)
- George Washington University Law School (1)
- Golden Gate University School of Law (1)
- Syracuse University (1)
- University of San Diego (1)
- Publication
-
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (8)
- Michigan Law Review (7)
- Articles (3)
- Indiana Law Journal (3)
- Publications (3)
-
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (2)
- Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (2)
- University of Miami Law Review (2)
- Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (2)
- Book Chapters (1)
- College of Law - Faculty Scholarship (1)
- GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works (1)
- Kentucky Law Journal (1)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (1)
- San Diego International Law Journal (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 40
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Michael C. Dorf, Matthew D. Adler
Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Michael C. Dorf, Matthew D. Adler
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision …
The Indispensable State, Irwin P. Stotzky
The Indispensable State, Irwin P. Stotzky
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equality And The Forms Of Justice, Susan Sturm
Equality And The Forms Of Justice, Susan Sturm
University of Miami Law Review
No abstract provided.
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark Tushnet
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark Tushnet
Michigan Law Review
The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here legislatures …
Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.
Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.
Michigan Law Review
On March 2, 1801, President John Adams appointed forty-two persons to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. John Marshall, doubling as Secretary of State as well as Chief Justice, failed to deliver the commissions. Adams's term expired. James Madison, Marshall's successor as Secretary of State, withheld seventeen of the commissions. In 1802, William Marbury and three other appointees to this minor office brought mandamus against Madison in the Supreme Court. Madison was ordered to show cause why the writ should not issue. Congress abolished the June sitting of the Court. Only in 1803 was the case …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Michigan Law Review
Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Judging The Next Emergency: Judicial Review And Individual Rights In Times Of Crisis, David Cole
Michigan Law Review
As virtually every law student who studies Marbury v. Madison learns, Chief Justice John Marshall's tactical genius was to establish judicial review in a case where the result could not be challenged. As a technical matter, Marbury lost, and the executive branch won. As furious as President Jefferson reportedly was with the decision, there was nothing he could do about it, for there was no mandate to defy. The Court's decision offered no remedy for Marbury himself, whose rights were directly at issue, and whose rights the Court found had indeed been violated. But over time, it became clear that …
Legislating Chevron, Elizabeth Garrett
Legislating Chevron, Elizabeth Garrett
Michigan Law Review
One of the most significant administrative law cases, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, lnc., is routinely referred to as the "counter-Marbury." The reference suggests that Chevron's command to courts to defer to certain reasonable agency interpretations of statutes is superficially an uneasy fit with the declaration in Marbury v. Madison that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." According to the consensus view, Chevron deference is consistent with Marbury, as long as Congress has delegated to agencies the power to make policy by interpreting ambiguous statutory language or filling …
Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter, Alec Stone Sweet
Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter, Alec Stone Sweet
Michigan Law Review
In this Article, I explore the question of why constitutional review, but not American judicial review, spread across Europe. I will also argue that, despite obvious organic differences between the American and European systems of review, there is an increasing convergence in how review actually operates. I proceed as follows. In Part I, I examine the debate on establishing judicial review in Europe, focusing on the French. In Parts II and III, I contrast the European and the American models of review, and briefly discuss why the Kelsenian constitutional court diffused across Europe. In Part IV, I argue that despite …
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
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Judicial Review And International Law, Michel Troper
Judicial Review And International Law, Michel Troper
San Diego International Law Journal
According to common doctrine, the courts, once established, apply the constitution, the principles expressed in the constitution, and also some principles not always expressed but that are thought to be inherent to any legal system, as for example the principle that the State is sovereign. Like the hierarchy of norms, these principles precede the institution of the courts and their jurisprudence, so that they can be used to evaluate them. True, the principles can be vague, but it is considered one of the tasks of constitutional theory to determine their substance before analyzing case law in their light.
Section Five Overbreadth: The Facial Approach To Adjudicating Challenges Under Section Five Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Catherine Carroll
Section Five Overbreadth: The Facial Approach To Adjudicating Challenges Under Section Five Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Catherine Carroll
Michigan Law Review
In February 1996, the New York State Department of Transportation fired Joseph Kilcullen from his position as a snowplow driver in the Department's Highway Maintenance training program. Alleging that the state discharged him because of his epilepsy and learning disability, Kilcullen sued his former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which abrogated states' sovereign immunity and permitted private suits for damages against states in a federal court. Kilcullen asserted only that he was not treated the same as similarly situated non-disabled employees; his claim did not implicate the ADA's requirement that employers provide "reasonable accommodation" to disabled employees. …
"Death Is Different" - Is Money Different? Criminal Punishments, Forfeitures, And Punitive Damages - Shifting Constitutional Paradigms For Assessing Proportionality, Rachel A. Van Cleave
"Death Is Different" - Is Money Different? Criminal Punishments, Forfeitures, And Punitive Damages - Shifting Constitutional Paradigms For Assessing Proportionality, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
Part I of this Article reviews the case law regarding judicial review of both terms of imprisonment and imposition of the death penalty. In this section, I argue for consistency within this area of the law. Some jurisprudence suggests that, because "death is different," proportionality review is appropriate only in the death penalty context, and is either not required or only applies in an extremely narrow example, such as life imprisonment for a parking ticket. Part II examines Supreme Court precedent that analyzes the question of proportionality of forfeitures and punitive damages awards. In the context of forfeitures, the debate …
Democracy, Not Deference: An Egalitarian Theory Of Judicial Review, Ronald C. Den Otter
Democracy, Not Deference: An Egalitarian Theory Of Judicial Review, Ronald C. Den Otter
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Marbury V. Madison And Modern Judicial Review, Robert F. Nagel
Marbury V. Madison And Modern Judicial Review, Robert F. Nagel
Publications
This Article compares the realist critique of Marbury with several revisionist defenses of that decision. Realists claim to see Marbury as essentially political and thus as the fountainhead of modern judicial review. Revisionists claim to see the decision as legalistically justified and thus inconsistent with current practices. Close examination, however, indicates that, despite sharp rhetorical differences, these two accounts are largely complementary rather than inconsistent. Each envisions Marbury as embodying elements of both political realism and legal formalism. Once the false argument about whether Marbury was either political or legal is put aside, it is possible to trace the influence …
Standing For Nothing: The Paradox Of Demanding Concrete Context For Formalist Adjudication, David M. Driesen
Standing For Nothing: The Paradox Of Demanding Concrete Context For Formalist Adjudication, David M. Driesen
College of Law - Faculty Scholarship
This article examines a paradox found in public law cases. While justiciability doctrines aim to provide concrete context for adjudication of public law questions by insisting upon individual injury, often the Supreme Court ignores the litigants' injuries when it turns to the merits of cases. Examination of this paradox leads to a fuller appreciation of the structure and nature of public law. In particular, it sheds light on a recent debate in leading law reviews about whether constitutional litigation should be seen as about individual rights or the validity of legal rules. It also raises serious questions about the modern …
The Constitutionality Of An Executive Spending Plan, Paul E. Salamanca
The Constitutionality Of An Executive Spending Plan, Paul E. Salamanca
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Operation of government in the absence of appropriations has become relatively common in the United States, particularly when projected expenses exceed projected revenue, making adoption of a budget a difficult task for the legislature. This Article focuses on the budget crisis in the Commonwealth of Kentucky from 2002 through 2003. In Part I, this Article recapitulates the history of the spending plan, including the action filed in Franklin Circuit Court to affirm its constitutionality. In Part II, this Article discusses certain theoretical, historical, and legal principles that inform analysis of the plan. In Part III, it considers certain deviations and …
Justice White And Judicial Review, Philip J. Weiser
Justice White And Judicial Review, Philip J. Weiser
Publications
No abstract provided.
From Unwritten To Written: Transformation In The British Common-Law Constitution, David Jenkins
From Unwritten To Written: Transformation In The British Common-Law Constitution, David Jenkins
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
This Article posits that the British Constitution is changing by incorporating written principles that restrain Parliament through judicial review. The Author asserts that this constitutional model has basis in the common law and the orthodox theories of Blackstone and Dicey. In addition, the "ultra vires" doctrine supports the model and provides a basis for judicial review of Parliament. As constitutions may accommodate written and unwritten elements of law, as well as various means of enforcement and change, the Author posits that constitutions are defined by how strongly they reflect underlying legal norms. With a shift in the rule of recognition …
The Problem With Arbitration Agreements, Stephen J. Choi
The Problem With Arbitration Agreements, Stephen J. Choi
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
Arbitration procedures today have become highly standardized. Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the American Arbitration Association Center for International Dispute Resolution (AAA) each have detailed provisions for administering arbitration proceedings (often involving parties of different nationalities). Parties entering into arbitration can expect to have limited discovery, a hearing, and the ability to bring attorneys to the proceedings. While typically providing less process than formal court proceedings, the standardized nature of arbitration can lead parties to view arbitration much like court proceedings--a fixed, pre-determined process to settle disputes. Thomas …
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
A large body of academic scholarship accuses the Rehnquist Court of "undoing the Second Reconstruction," just as the Waite Court has long been blamed for facilitating the end of the First. This critique captures much of what is meant by those generally charging the Rehnquist Court with "conservative judicial activism." It posits that the present Court wants to dismantle decades' worth of federal antidiscrimination measures that are aimed at the "reconstruction" of public and private relationships at the local level. It sees the Waite Court as having similarly nullified the civil-rights initiatives enacted by Congress following the Civil War to …
Thayerian Deference To Congress And Supreme Court Supermajority Rules: Lessons From The Past (Symposium: Congressional Power In The Shadow Of The Rehnquist Court: Strategies For The Future), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
Over the past eight years, the Supreme Court has been unusually aggressive in its exercise ofjudicial review over federal statutes challenged on federalism grounds. Eleven times the Court has invalidated provisions in federal statutes after determining that Congress exceeded the scope of its limited regulatory authority. In ten of the eleven cases, the vote was 5-4 with the identical five-Justice conservative majority (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) controlling the decision.
"Sir, Yes, Sir!": The Courts, Congress And Structural Injunctions, Mark V. Tushnet
"Sir, Yes, Sir!": The Courts, Congress And Structural Injunctions, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This is a deeply confused book. Not that the authors' stance is unclear: They have seen federal courts in action, and they don't like what they see. Their subject is federal judicial supervision of state and local governments through injunctive decrees. The authors' position wouldn't be confused - or at least would be confused in a different way - if they dealt with injunctive decrees aimed at enforcing what the judges took to be constitutional requirements. In such cases there's at least something coherent that can be said about judges displacing democratic decision-making. Sandler and Schoenbrod, though, don't deal with …
New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet
New Forms Of Judicial Review And The Persistence Of Rights - And Democracy-Based Worries, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Recent developments in judicial review have raised the possibility that the debate over judicial supremacy versus legislative supremacy might be transformed into one about differing institutions to implement judicial review. Rather than posing judicial review against legislative supremacy, the terms of the debate might be over having institutions designed to exercise forms of judicial review that accommodate both legislative supremacy and judicial implementation of constitutional limits. After examining some of these institutional developments in Canada, South Africa, and Great Britain, this Article asks whether these accommodations, which attempt to pursue a middle course, have characteristic instabilities that will in the …
Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben
Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
I will say a few words about Dickerson, both because Michael has made it impossible not to and also because in some ways it represents the very best about how all of the wonderful, tried-and-true processes of the SG's Office ought to work. Dickerson was very much like the other case that Michael talked about (which is one of, I think, two significant privilege controversies which the Independent Counsel laid on our doorstep). These cases may have appeared to the outside world as paradigmatically cases in which we would be hearing from the White House, or talking to the White …
Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet
Non-Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutionalism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three diverse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may perform constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies.
Defending Korematsu?: Reflections On Civil Liberties In Wartime, Mark V. Tushnet
Defending Korematsu?: Reflections On Civil Liberties In Wartime, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
According to Justice William J. Brennan, "After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along." This Article examines that observation, using Korematsu as a vehicle for refining the claim and, I think, reducing it to a more defensible one. Part I opens my discussion, providing some qualifications to the broad claim about threats to civil liberties in wartime. Part II then deals with Korematsu and other historical examples of civil liberties …
Alarmism Versus Moderation In Responding To The Rehnquist Court, Mark V. Tushnet
Alarmism Versus Moderation In Responding To The Rehnquist Court, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
I begin in Part I by offering a description of the Supreme Court's recent decisions as a less substantial repudiation of prior principles than many think them to be, and as leaving Congress with the means to achieve a quite substantial proportion of the policy goals it pursued in the statutes the Court invalidated. Part II explains why Congress is unlikely to do so, in light of our apparent commitment to divided government, and parties that are organized around distinctive ideologies because of divided government. Part III turns to the prospect for continued policy transformation, identifying the conditions under which …
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet
Alternative Forms Of Judicial Review, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The invention in the late twentieth century of what I call weak-form systems of judicial review provides us with the chance to see in a new light some traditional debates within U.S. constitutional law and theory, which are predicated on the fact that the United States has strong-form judicial review. Strong- and weak-form systems operate on the level of constitutional design, in the sense that their characteristics are specified in constitutional documents or in deep-rooted constitutional traditions. After sketching the differences between strong- and weak-form systems, I turn to design features that operate at the next lower level. Here legislatures …
A New Constitutionalism For Liberals?, Mark V. Tushnet
A New Constitutionalism For Liberals?, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
It has been apparent for at least a decade that liberal constitutional theory is in deep trouble. Of course there are many versions of liberal constitutional theory, but they have essentially no connection to existing practices of constitutional law, considering as practices of constitutional law all the activities of our institutions of government that implicate - interpret, advance, deal with, whatever - fundamental principle. Instead, liberal constitutional theory's vision of the future is nostalgia for the past. For liberal constitutional theorists the Warren Court, or Justice Brennan, basically got everything right, at least in their approach to identifying constitutional law. …