Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (13)
- President/Executive Department (8)
- Courts (5)
- Legislation (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
-
- Jurisdiction (3)
- Military, War, and Peace (3)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Law and Society (2)
- Legal History (2)
- National Security Law (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- International Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Privacy Law (1)
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
Impartial Justice: Restoring Integrity To Impeachment Trials, Justin D. Rattey
Impartial Justice: Restoring Integrity To Impeachment Trials, Justin D. Rattey
Pepperdine Law Review
In recent decades, we have witnessed the diminution of the impeachment process by various actors—especially political parties. But the Founders envisioned a vastly different process, one that was insulated from partisanship. In Alexander Hamilton’s words, impeachment trials were assigned to the Senate because the Senate is “a tribunal sufficiently dignified [and] sufficiently independent.” Examples from the most recent impeachment trials of President Donald J. Trump reflect the Senate’s loss of dignity and independence, with Senator McConnell pledging to work with the White House throughout the first impeachment process and senators from both parties conceding that they made up their minds …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
On July 9, 2020, in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the separation of powers concerns attendant to congressional subpoenas for presidential information. Given that the question presented in Mazars concerned whether Congress had a legitimate legislative purpose in subpoenaing the President’s personal records, the Supreme Court’s decision is anything but a model of clarity. The Court simultaneously opined that disputes “involving nonprivileged, private information” “do[ ] not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations” while claiming “congressional subpoenas for the President’s information unavoidably pit …
Administrative Law: Whose Job Is It Anyway?, Allison Mather
Administrative Law: Whose Job Is It Anyway?, Allison Mather
Pepperdine Law Review
This Note examines the current state of judicial deference to administrative agencies and suggests modifying the doctrine to better comport with the Constitution. It examines the history of administrative agencies and the rise of judicial deference. The Note explores the present-day applications of judicial deference and analyzes whether the current doctrine is consistent with both its initial underlying policies and the Constitution. Ultimately, judicial deference to administrative agencies raises serious separation of powers concerns and should be modified to remain faithful to the nation’s founding principles.
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
The Indefinite Deflection Of Congressional Standing, Nat Stern
The Indefinite Deflection Of Congressional Standing, Nat Stern
Pepperdine Law Review
Recent litigation brought or threatened against the administration of President Obama has brought to prominence the question of standing by Congress or its members to sue the President for nondefense or non-enforcement of federal law. While scholars divide over the normative propriety of such suits, the Court has never issued a definitive pronouncement on their viability. Nevertheless, the Court’s rulings when the issue has arisen have displayed a distinct pattern. While the Court has not formally repudiated suits of this nature, neither has it issued a decision that hinges on the presence of congressional standing. On the contrary, the Court …
Standing And Covert Surveillance, Christopher Slobogin
Standing And Covert Surveillance, Christopher Slobogin
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article describes and analyzes standing doctrine as it applies to covert government surveillance, focusing on practices thought to be conducted by the National Security Agency. Primarily because of its desire to avoid judicial incursions into the political process, the Supreme Court has construed its standing doctrine in a way that makes challenges to covert surveillance very difficult. Properly understood, however, such challenges do not call for judicial trenching on the power of the legislative and executive branches. Instead, they ask the courts to ensure that the political branches function properly. This political process theory of standing can rejuvenate the …
Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport
Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld a Congressional decision which excluded women from registration for service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Although the case was brought based upon equal protection grounds, the majority took a separation of powers stance and based its decision upon the fact that the Court has traditionally granted deference to the decisions of Congress in the area of military affairs. The minority opinions disagreed with the majority's analysis and claimed that the central issue in Rostker was not military in nature, but was that Congress' plan to register males only, promoted …
The Confrontation Of The Legislative And Executive Branches: An Examination Of The Constitutional Balance Of Powers And The Role Of The Attorney General, Robert E. Palmer
The Confrontation Of The Legislative And Executive Branches: An Examination Of The Constitutional Balance Of Powers And The Role Of The Attorney General, Robert E. Palmer
Pepperdine Law Review
The United States Constitution created an internally dependent tripartite governing scheme which relied upon a carefully drafted system of checks and balances as a means of self-regulation. Recent years have seen increased conflicts between the separate branches, the most recent of which is the occasion for this article. The article traces the rise and fall of the power exercised by the various branches and then focuses on the recent confrontation between Congress and the executive branch concerning the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency and the subsequent resignation of Anne McGill Burford. Of particular interest to this inquiry is the …
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
The Constitutionality Of The Federal Sentencing Reform Act After Mistretta V. United States, Charles R. Eskridge Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Boland In The Wind: The Iran-Contra Affair And The Invitation To Struggle , Bretton G. Sciaroni
Boland In The Wind: The Iran-Contra Affair And The Invitation To Struggle , Bretton G. Sciaroni
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Separation Of Powers Doctrine: Straining Out Gnats, Swallowing Camels?, James M. Mcgoldrick Jr.
The Separation Of Powers Doctrine: Straining Out Gnats, Swallowing Camels?, James M. Mcgoldrick Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Separation Of Powers: Interpretation Outside The Courts , Louis Fisher
Separation Of Powers: Interpretation Outside The Courts , Louis Fisher
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Congress Giveth, And The Courts Taketh Away: Is Restitutionary Recoupment Of Federal Funds A Proper Remedy When Taxpayers Allege That An Expired Statute Violated The Establishment Clause?, Kendra Williams
Pepperdine Law Review
The Seventh Circuit recently held in Laskowski v. Spellings that grantees of government funding can be forced by taxpayers to give grant money back to the federal government when the grant has allegedly violated the Establishment Clause - even when the grant statute expired years ago, the funds have long since been spent, and the government does not want the money back. Laskowski's new remedy has the potential for widely impacting Establishment Clause jurisprudence, especially in the areas of government funding for sectarian schools and other religiously-affiliated groups. The ready availability of a recoupment remedy could also have far-reaching and …
What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb
What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and prohibits the national government, the states or both from doing some things. The Court has inferred principles of federalism from those provisions. The political science community has treated the advantages of federalism as contingent on whether federalism deepens or diffuses conflict or opens competition for power. The United States Supreme Court's approach does neither; it has been trying to clarify and police a very different boundary. Even on its own terms, however, the Court's justifications do not work - a problem made …
Congress's Power To Regulate The Federal Judiciary: What The First Congress And The First Federal Courts Can Teach Today's Congress And Courts , Paul Taylor
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Beyond The Executive Agreement: The Foreign Policy Preference Under Movsesian And The Return Of The Dormant Foreign Affairs Power In Norton Simon, Amir M. Tikriti
Beyond The Executive Agreement: The Foreign Policy Preference Under Movsesian And The Return Of The Dormant Foreign Affairs Power In Norton Simon, Amir M. Tikriti
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Auditor For The Auditors' Auditor: Accounting For The Unitary Executive In Free Enterprise Fund V. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Kelsey Elizabeth Stapler
The Auditor For The Auditors' Auditor: Accounting For The Unitary Executive In Free Enterprise Fund V. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Kelsey Elizabeth Stapler
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.