Law Commons^™

The Fiduciary Theory Of Governmental Legitimacy And The Natural Charter Of The Judiciary, Luke A. Wake

Luke A. Wake

In legal academia, there are various claims as to the proper role of the courts and the standard of review to be employed in evaluating claims of right. These competing judicial philosophies have been the subject of great debate in recent years. Yet underlying these debates is the question of rights and whether men are entitled, in justice, to assurances of personal autonomy, or whether the concept of rights is a mere legal fiction.

In a recent article in the Journal of Law and Philosophy, Evan Fox-Decent argues that individuals are entitled, at a minimum, to certain guarantees of bodily …

Acontextual Judicial Review, Louis Michael Seidman

Louis Michael Seidman

Is constitutional judicial review a necessary component of a just polity? A striking feature of the current debate is its tendency to proceed as if the question could be answered in the same way always and everywhere. Defenders of constitutional review argue that is a conceptually necessary feature of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the effective protection of individual rights. Critics claim that it is necessarily inconsistent with progressive politics and democratic engagement. Largely missing from the debate is a fairly obvious point: Like any other institution, constitutional review must be evaluated within a particular temporal, cultural, and political …

Glimmers Of Hope: The Evolution Of Equality Rights Doctrine In Japanese Courts From A Comparative Perspective, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

There has been little study of the analytical framework employed by the Japanese courts in resolving constitutional claims under the right to be treated as an equal and not be discriminated against. In the Japanese literature the only comparative analysis done focuses on American equal protection jurisprudence. This article examines the development of the equality rights doctrine in the Japanese Supreme Court from the perspective of an increasingly universal “proportionality analysis” approach to rights enforcement, of which the Canadian equality rights jurisprudence is a good example, in contrast to the American approach. This comparative analysis, which begins with a review …

Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc. : Towards An Even More Deferential Judiciary?, Alan Moe

Alan W Moe Jr

Censorship has always been a polemical area of constitutional law. The controversy is further amplified when administrative agencies deal with sensitive areas of constitutional liberties. In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1800, 1807 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with an important issue of constitutional law and its intersection with the standard of judicial review for administrative agencies’ actions. In this case, the Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s about-face on its relatively conservative approach to the censorship of broadcasts for reasons of indecency in 2004. The FCC applied against Fox Television Stations its new policy of …

Institutional Virtues And Constitutional Theory: Bracketing Disagreements About Justice, Kenneth D. Ward

Kenneth Ward

Recent arguments in constitutional theory have tended to focus on the institutional arrangements that respond to disagreements about justice. This essay distinguishes two forms these arguments take: claims of institutional virtue and structural claims. Claims of institutional virtue, in contrast to structural claims, do not depend on contested assumptions about justice and therefore address problems that follow from disagreements about justice without favoring one view over another. Moreover, claims of institutional virtue gain significance in conditions in which people continue to fight about what the Constitution means even after governmental institutions claim to settle them, conditions that seem to characterize …

R (On The Application Of E) (Respondent) V Governing Body Of Jfs And The Admissions Appeal Panel Of Jfs (Appellants) And Others (Case Note) [2009] Uksc 15, Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler

Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler

This case-note offers comparative perspectives on the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the JFS case (alleged racially discriminatory school admissions policy) and the Israeli Supreme Court’s judgment in the Emanuel Haredi school case (alleged Ashkenazi/Sephardi segregation arrangements).

Fitting The Formula For Judicial Review: The Law-Fact Distinction In Immigration Law, Rebecca Sharpless

Rebecca Sharpless

The ill-defined law-fact distinction often stands as the gatekeeper to judicial review of an agency deportation order, restricting non-citizens facing deportation to raising only questions of law when appearing before an appellate court. The restriction on review most affects cases whose dispositions typically turn on the resolution of factual issues, including claims under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and claims for discretionary relief from deportation like cancellation of removal. Convention Against Torture claims, for example, often involve extensive fact-finding on the part of the immigration judge regarding conditions in the applicant’s home country and the applicant’s personal circumstances. …

Structural Guarantees - The Union's Last Best Hope Against National Arbitrariness, Angelica Ericsson

Angelica Ericsson

In line with current tendencies of ‘new governance’, this article will introduce a novel judicial tool which strikes a balance between the respect for national assessments and the effective implementation of Union law.This balance can be struck through the demands of structural guarantees; administrative safeguards, which weed out arbitrary national decision-making. The provision of transparent and accessible legislation, administrative procedures based on objective criteria, as well as the access to effective judicial review are all specific examples of structural guarantees. Together they create a system of checks to prevent discretion from turning into arbitrariness. All of these demands are ultimately …