Courts Commons^™

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald

Pepperdine Law Review

A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.

The Propriety Of Jury Questioning: A Remedy For Perceived Harmless Error, Laurie Forbes Neff

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Absentee Post-Conviction Constitutional Safeguards – People V. Zowaski, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Cheers For The Constitution Of The United States: A Response To Professor Lee J. Strang, Patrick Mckinley Brennan

Working Paper Series

This article is an invited response to Professor Lee Strang’s article Originalism and the Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’s Home in Originalism, 80 Fordham L. Rev. 1997 (2012). Strang defends original public meaning originalism from a virtue theoretic perspective that he traces to the “central Western tradition” and ultimately to Aristotle. I reply that those committed to that tradition do better (1) to reject original pubic meaning originalism, (2) to embrace some version of original intent originalism, and (3) to defend the original intent meaning of the U.S. Constitution only with important reservations and on certain conditions. The original sin of …

Foreign Affairs Federalism And The Limits On Executive Power, Zachary D. Clopton

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

On February 23 of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a California statute permitting victims of the Armenian genocide to file insurance claims, finding that the state's use of the label "Genocide" intruded on the federal government's conduct of foreign affairs. This decision, Movsesian v. Versicherung AG, addresses foreign affairs federalism—the division of authority between the states and the federal government. Just one month later, the Supreme Court weighed in on another foreign affairs issue: the separation of foreign relations powers within the federal government. In Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to …

Nigro V. United States: The Most Disingenuous Supreme Court Opinion, Ever, A. Christopher Bryant

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Congress, The Constitution, And Supreme Court Recusal, Louis J. Virelli Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

Recusal is one of the most hotly contested issues facing the Supreme Court. From the wide-ranging debate over Supreme Court recusal, however, a singular theme has emerged: Congress must do more to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the Court by regulating the Justices’ recusal practices. Herein lies the problem. Rather than solve the puzzle of Supreme Court recusal, direct congressional regulation has created an impasse between Congress and the Court that has consequences for the reputation, efficacy, and legitimacy of both Branches. In a precursor to this Article, I recast the issue of Supreme Court recusal as a constitutional …

Naim V. Naim, Richard Delgado

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The European Convention On Human Rights And National Constitutional Reordering, Alec Stone Sweet

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutionalism Beyond The State? The Administrative Character Of European Governance Revisited, Peter L. Lindseth

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Swing Votes On The Current Supreme Court: The Joint Opinion In Casey And Its Progeny, R. Randall Kelso, Charles D. Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the courts' incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into their structural federalism analyses. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism is surprising, especially given that judges frequently choose indirect methods, including the structural and processbased methods at issue in the ACA litigation, for protecting substantive constitutional values. Indeed, indirect protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed "semisubstantive review" and another theorized as "judicial manipulation of legislative …

Utah V. Evans: How Census 2000'S "Sampling In Disguise" Fooled The Supreme Court Into Allocating Utah's Seat In The U.S. House Of Representatives To North Carolina, Nathan T. Dwyer

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination: An In-Depth Look At Mckune V. Lile, Heidi Feldman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Scholarship Highlight: Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Back To The Future (Reviewing David Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform (2011)), William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Standing Lessons: What We Can Learn When Conservative Plaintiffs Lose Under Article Iii Standing Doctrine, Heather Elliott

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s Article III standing doctrine has plagued liberal groups for nearly forty years. Recently, however, the doctrine has blocked a number of conservative lawsuits opposing gay marriage, the 2010 health care law, and the expansion of federal funding for stem cell research.

What can we learn from these cases? Because contemporary criticisms of standing doctrine have usually come from the left and defenses from the right, it is commonplace to associate arguments for broad standing with left-wing political agendas.

But, as some scholars have shown, a version of narrow standing helped liberals protect New Deal legislation in the …

Agency And Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients For Their Lawyers' Mistakes, Adam Liptak

Michigan Law Review

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made a mistake, the answer would be no. You might even get a look suggesting that you had asked a pretty stupid question. But judges treat the issue as a hard one, relying on a theory as casually accepted in criminal justice as it is offensive to principles of moral philosophy. This theory holds that the lawyer is the client's agent. What the agent does binds the principal. But clients and lawyers fit the agency model imperfectly. Agency law is …

Can California Save Its Death Sentences? Will Californians Save The Expense?, Scott W. Howe

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Confirmation Of Punitive Awards In Arbitration: Did Due Process Disappear?, Stuart M. Boyarsky

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Part I of this article provides a brief overview of the reasoning behind the limited judicial review of an arbitral award. Part II describes the state action doctrine and explains how several courts have used the doctrine in order to apply due process protection to proceedings involving private actors. In particular, this section discusses several significant decisions that involve the issue of whether a court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award of punitive damages creates state action and requires the application of constitutional protections such as due process. This Note concludes that due to a leading decision by the Eleventh Circuit, …

Intermittent State Constitutionalism, Justin Long

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

The T-Rex Without Teeth: Evolving Strickland V. Washington And The Test For Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Robert R. Rigg

Pepperdine Law Review

In Strickland v. Washington the United States Supreme Court formulated the test for determining whether counsel in a criminal case is ineffective. When the Court decided Strickland it created a doctrine of enormous proportions, but with little impact--a legal tyrannosaurus rex without teeth. In the last decade, by using American Bar Association (“ABA”) standards to evaluate counsel's performance, the Court has given the T-Rex some sizable incisors. The purposes of this article are to: (1) determine how frequently the United States Supreme Court uses ABA standards in its decisions and describe briefly for what purposes the Court uses those standards; …

The Problem Of Policing, Rachel A. Harmon

Michigan Law Review

The legal problem of policing is how to regulate police authority to permit officers to enforce law while also protecting individual liberty and minimizing the social costs the police impose. Courts and commentators have largely treated the problem of policing as limited to preventing violations of constitutional rights and its solution as the judicial definition and enforcement of those rights. But constitutional law and courts alone are necessarily inadequate to regulate the police. Constitutional law does not protect important interests below the constitutional threshold or effectively address the distributional impacts of law enforcement activities. Nor can the judiciary adequately assess …

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.

A Tort Statute, With Aliens And Pirates, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

The pirates of the Caribbean are back. Not in another fantastical film but in the litigation over the reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For the first time since they dealt with the legal issues raised by a wave of maritime predation in the Caribbean in the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices are seriously discussing piracy. This crime has emerged as the test case for evaluating the major controversies about the reach of the statute -- namely, extraterritorial application and the existence of corporate liability. At oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, justices of all persuasions …