Courts Commons^™

Generic Constitutional Law, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

This paper seeks to articulate and explore the emerging phenomenon of generic constitutional law, here and in other countries. Several explanations are offered for this development. First, constitutional courts face common normative concerns pertaining to countermajoritarianism and, as a result, experience a common need to justify judicial review. These concerns, and the stock responses that courts have developed, amount to a body of generic constitutional theory. Second, courts employ common problem-solving skills in constitutional cases. The use of these skills constitutes what might be called generic constitutional analysis. Third, courts face overlapping influences, largely not of their own making, that …

Reconsidering The Constitutionality Of Federal Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely: A Former Commissioner's Perspective, Michael Goldsmith

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Third Parallel Primrose Path: The Supreme Court's Repeated, Unexplained, And Still Growing Regulation Of State Courts' Criminal Appeals, Russell M. Coombs

ExpressO

Recently the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Ornelas v. United States, that decisions of certain mixed questions of federal constitutional law and fact, arising under various amendments, must be reviewed de novo on direct appeal. The Court has not specified that state courts are bound by these rulings, but has used conflicting language relevant to that issue. Faced with this ambiguity, the courts of a number of states have departed from their prior practices by following these rulings, at least some because they consider themselves bound to do so, and have extended …

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …

'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

ExpressO

In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.

I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …

Fifteen Famous Supreme Court Cases From Georgia, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

John Inscoe, UGA professor of history and editor of the New Georgia Encyclopedia, invited Hosch Professor Dan T. Coenen to contribute a series of essays on the most significant U.S. Supreme Court cases that originated in the state of Georgia. This article, which proposes an unranked top 15 list, is built on this work.

Hong Kong Right Of Abode: Ng Siu Tung & (And) Others V. Director Of Immigration - Constitutional And Human Rights At The Mercy Of China, Teresa Martin

San Diego International Law Journal

This Comment argues that the Court's refusal to sidestep the Standing Committee's reinterpretation using either the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, or the judgments previously rendered clause in the Basic Law, signifies its capitulation to the Standing Committee, and its inability to protect constitutional rights and/or human rights in Hong Kong. This Comment will first give a brief background on the concept of one country, two systems and the drafting of the basic law. Second, it will introduce the Right of Abode cases, and explain the constitutional crisis of 1999. Third, it analyzes Ng Siu Tung & Others v. Director of …

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Constitution For Judicial Lawmaking, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When courts decide cases, the decisions make law because they become precedent that binds future courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. This article argues that some principles governing judicial lawmaking are functionally constitutional principles because they go to the validity of a particular attempt at judicial lawmaking (just as the constitutional principles governing legislative lawmaking determine the validity of lawmaking by legislatures). Because even poorly reasoned judicial decisions can still be effective lawmaking acts, it is important to distinguish between constitutional and non-constitutional principles and arguments. While a non-constitutional principle can be a basis for examining the wisdom or …

Courts As Forums For Protest, Jules Lobel

ExpressO

For almost half a century, scholars, judges and politicians have debated two competing models of the judiciary’s role in a democratic society. The mainstream model views courts as arbiters of disputes between private individuals asserting particular rights. The public law or structural reform litigation emphasized the judiciary’s role in implementing social change and not simply ordering private relationships.

The ongoing debate between these two views of the judicial role has obscured a third model of the role of courts in a democratic society; a model that has been ignored by legal scholars and viewed as illegitimate by some courts. That …

Beyond Reparations: An American Indian Theory Of Justice, William C. Bradford

ExpressO

The number of states, corporations, and religious groups formally disowning past records of egregious human injustice is mushrooming. Although the Age of Apology is a global phenomenon, the question of reparations—a tort-based mode of redress whereby a wrongdoing group accepts legal responsibility and compensates victims for the damage it inflicted upon them—likely consumes more energy, emotion, and resources in the U.S. than in any other jurisdiction. Since the final year of the Cold War, the U.S. and its political subdivisions have apologized or paid compensation to Japanese-American internees, native Hawaiians, civilians killed in the Korean War, and African American victims …

The Role Of Purposivism In The Delegation Of Rulemaking Authority To The Courts, Michael Rosensaft

ExpressO

The courts are often used by Congress as a “political lightning rod,” when Congress cannot decide how to resolve an issue. Congress relies on administrative agencies for their expertise, and it also makes sense for Congress to delegate some rulemaking authority to the courts, relying on a court’s expertise in developing caselaw in an incremental basis. However, this authority should not be lightly implied. A court can tell that Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to it when the purpose of the statute is clear and the text is broadly worded. It thus makes sense in these cases that purposivism should …

Beyond Rights: Legal Process And Ethnic Conflicts, Elena A. Baylis

ExpressO

Unresolved ethnic conflicts threaten the stability and the very existence of multi-ethnic states. The realities of ethnic conflict are daunting: ethnic disputes tend to be both persistent and complex, and efforts to use democracy or ethnic-blind policies to deal with those conflicts tend to fail. While multi-ethnic states have struggled to devise political solutions for ethnic conflict, they have largely ignored the role that legal processes might play in resolving ethnic discord. But at certain crucial moments in the development of ethnic conflicts, legal processes such as mediation, adjudication, and constitutional interpretation might effectively address these disputes.

This article explores …

Free Exercise Of Religion In Germany And The United States, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, Professor Edward Eberle provides a comparative overview of constitutional safeguards affecting religious freedom in Germany and the United States. Specifically the author analyzes the German and American approaches to the free exercise of religion within their respective constitutional systems. The result is an illuminating exposition that provides much insight for comparative and constitutional scholars.

In the years following the Second World War, religious freedoms in Germany developed along similar, individualist paths to those found in the United States Constitution. However, unlike the Constitution, the Basic Law's provisions touching on religious liberty are detailed and quite elaborate and …

The Three Independences, H. Jefferson Powell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Independence, William H. Rehnquist

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legislative Restraint In The Confirmation Process, Kenneth W. Starr

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Independence And The Scope Of Article Iii--A View From The Federalist, Michael G. Collins

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward A New Constitutional Anatomy, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

There is an important sense in which our Constitution's structure is not what it appears to be--a set of activities or functions or geographies, the 'judicial" or the "executive" or the "legislative" power, the "truly local and the truly national. "Indeed, it is only if we put these notions to the side that we can come to grips with the importance of the generative provisions of the Constitution: the provisions that actually create our federal government; that bind citizens, through voting, to a House of Representatives, to a Senate, to a President, and even, indirectly, to a Supreme Court. In …

Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, Ann Woolhandler, Caleb Nelson

Michigan Law Review

According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that federal courts can adjudicate, but also the parties who can bring those matters before them. In particular, the Court has held that private citizens who have suffered no concrete private injury lack standing to ask federal courts to redress diffuse harms to the public at large. When such harms are justiciable at all, the proper party plaintiff is the public itself, represented by an authorized officer of the government. Although the Court claims historical support for these ideas, academic critics insist that the law …

Symbolic Counter-Speech, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Pace And Cause Of Change, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 357 (2004), Larry D. Kramer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 317 (2004), Samuel R. Olken

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Province Of The Judiciary, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 325 (2004), William E. Nelson

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Secret Life Of The Political Question Doctrine, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 441 (2004), Louis Michael Seidman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ironies Of Marbury V. Madison And John Marshall's Judicial Statesmanship, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 391 (2004), Samuel R. Olken

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Marbury V. Madison As The First Great Administrative Law Decision, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 481 (2004), Thomas W. Merrill

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Boundary Of Personal Jurisdiction: The "Effects Test" And The Protection Of Crazy Horse's Name, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 381 (2004), Scott Fruehwald

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remaining Silent: A Right With Consequences, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 649 (2004), Jeffrey D. Waltuck

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proportionality Between Crimes, Offenses, And Punishments, James Headley

St. Thomas Law Review

Blackstone said of the Roman Empire, after it embraced unjust laws, "and then the Empire Fell. The United States Supreme Court embraces unjust laws and is inconsistent regarding substantive due process and proportionality in criminal cases, and substantive due process and proportionality in civil cases. The Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment require proportionality and fairness, meaning that the punishment must fit the crime, and that the penalty must be appropriate to the offense. Throughout a long history of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has developed or embraced two varying theories of due process …