Courts Commons^™

Aggregation And The “Universal” Injunction, Portia Pedro, Adam Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

A crucial function of judicial review is not only “to say what the law is,”¹ but also to provide the remedies to vindicate that law.²  Judicial review plays an especially important role when government officials act in ways that violate federal law, including when they violate the Constitution.³  When government officials violate the law, the judicial review function supports a remedy that requires officials to comply with federal law by ceasing to pursue the illegal policy or practice.

Such “compliance” injunctions have been given the label “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions insofar as they go beyond giving “complete …

Administering Election Disputes, Rebecca Green

University of Miami Law Review

U.S. election administration has become supercharged with controversy. A process that should be mundane—casting and counting votes—has become the target of relentless litigation, much of which ends in non-merits rulings that risk perpetuating rather than resolving public concerns. The high volume of election litigation is costly, strains election officials, and risks eroding public trust in both elections and the courts. Recognizing the need to resolve election claims fairly and efficiently, Administering Election Disputes examines administrative remedies as an under-theorized alternative to judicial resolution. Increased use of well-designed administrative election dispute resolution (AEDR) could reduce pressure on courts, deliver faster and …

Reflections On Judicial Supervision Of Prosecutorial Powers, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The courts occasionally claim that the limits to the power to prosecute are different from the limits to other executive powers. They say that prosecutorial decisions are subject to judicial review on a reduced set of grounds compared to other executive decisions. I have previously argued that this approach is wrong, and aim to elaborate on the argument in this blog post. The focus will be on the laws of the UK and of Singapore, but it is hoped that the reflections here will be of some use in other common-law jurisdictions as well.

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Applying History As Law: The Role Of Historical Facts In Implementing Constitutional Doctrine, Joseph Blocher, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court has long relied on historical evidence in constitutional cases, but recent years have seen a major change in how it does so: not only to interpret the meaning of constitutional text, but to establish doctrinal tests that call for historical evidence to be used in the application of those tests going forward. Broadly speaking, originalism has moved from the realm of legal interpretation to that of law declaration and then to law application. This transformation in the legal significance of history raises important questions for originalism as a practice of constitutional adjudication, not simply a theory …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

Defining Deference: Impacts Of Abandoning Chevron On Emerging Technology Governance And Administrative Law, R. Aubrey Davis Iii

Seattle University Law Review

Emerging technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), often lead to unforeseen legal outcomes. Notable abuses in areas such as facial recognition, employment bias, and housing discrimination are well known. However, legislative responses to these issues either have been largely reactive or there has been no legislative response at all. In lieu of legislation, agencies have sought to fill the gap. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently proposed a rule mandating voter notification for all AI-generated political phone calls citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 as authority. However, the TCPA was originally passed to curtail telemarketing, not …

Judicial Review Of Settlements Under The Class Action Fairness Act And Deference Due To The Department Of Justice And State Attorneys General, Michael E. Solimine, Hailey Martin

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) made it easier to remove consumer class actions from state to federal court, and among other things regulates the procedure of federal court approval of settlements of those cases. CAFA requires that before any court approval or disapproval, the parties must notify the Attorney General of the United States, and the attorneys general of states where members of the class live, of the pending settlement in order to receive any objections or other input. While such notice is frequently sent, since most class action cases settle out of court, it appears that …

The Ideational Dimension Of Judicial Power, Allen C. Sumrall

Marquette Law Review

The judiciary dominates contemporary American politics. In the United States, courts have overcome their humble origins to act as central figures in nearly every major policy dispute and separation of powers dispute. To explain this development, scholars have documented the increase in the federal judiciary’s institutional capacity and resources. Most accounts of the judiciary’s changing role in American constitutional politics focus on the courts’ expanded jurisdiction, the statutes that channel judicial review, the courts’ material resources, or changes to how politicians harness or respond to the judiciary. But focusing on these more formal institutional changes only gets us so far. …

"Then What?": A Framework For Life Without Chevron, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce. What happens next? What should happen next?

This essay does not try to answer either of those important questions. Rather, it seeks to provide a framework to promote careful thinking about those questions. Specifically, any predictive or prescriptive account of the law governing judicial review of federal agency legal interpretations needs to think carefully about four issues.

First, what does “deference” actually mean in any given context? “Deference” can mean anything from polite respect to absolute obeisance, and everything in …

Fixing Mfw: Fairness And Vision In Controller Self-Dealing, Zohar Goshen, Assaf Hamdani, Dorothy S. Lund

Faculty Scholarship

The legal regime governing controlling shareholders relies on the ability of Delaware courts to police conflicted transactions under the stringent "entire fairness" standard of review. This review involves both implicit valuation – evaluating the transaction process, and explicit valuation – assessing the fairness of the transaction's financial terms. This Article reveals a critical flaw in this regime: courts cannot reliably engage in valuation when the transaction involves an entrepreneur's idiosyncratic vision for the company. As a result, there is a gaping hole in Delaware's framework for policing the fairness of controller transactions.

Delaware courts have developed guardrails to avoid judicial …

History And Tradition As Heightened Scrutiny, Andrew Willinger

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is turning to methodologies privileging text, history, and tradition, or THT, to interpret and implement various constitutional provisions. The Court has recently endorsed historically-focused approaches to determine how the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and carry a firearm, how the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and freedom of religion, and whether the Due Process Clause protects reproductive autonomy, among other questions.

Much scholarship and popular commentary surrounding THT portrays the methodology as sui generis: presenting unique analytical challenges and impervious to direct comparison to existing doctrinal approaches. However, the jurist most …

Sidestepping Substance: How Administrative Law Plays An Outsized Role In Shaping Environmental Policy And Why Recalibration Is Necessary, Sanne H. Knudsen

Articles

Administrative law and environmental law are companion fields. Still, they are not interchangeable. They promote different values. And yet, sometimes when courts resolve environmental disputes by relying on administrative doctrines, courts elevate the values of administrative law over those codified in environmental statutes. This is particularly concerning when courts rely on judicially-created administrative law doctrines to sidestep congressional intent as expressed by the substantive aims of environmental statutes.

To reduce the risk of sidestepping—whether inadvertent or intentional—this Article critically examines how administrative law doctrines can undermine environmental law. Drawing on prominent case examples, including the Supreme Court decision in Sackett …

Agency Use Of Indirect Benefits To Justify Regulation, Abe Eichner

Michigan Law Review

Executive agencies have long used indirect benefits—meaning benefits beyond the express purpose of a regulation—to justify their rulemakings. However, the statutes that provide agencies with regulatory authority rarely explicitly direct agencies to consider indirect benefits. Lower courts disagree over whether consideration of indirect benefits is permissible, and the Supreme Court has reserved the question for a future case. Courts and existing scholarship have largely asked whether particular statutory provisions authorize consideration of indirect benefits. This Note contends that, even without such statutory authorization, indirect benefits are presumptively permissible because they further three traditional administrative law values: rational decisionmaking, transparency, and …

Reassessing Administrative Finality: The Importance Of New Evidence And Changed Circumstances, Gwendolyn Savitz

Cleveland State Law Review

Administrative finality of agency action is generally thought of as a method of avoiding premature judicial review—a claim that the review is too early. But it is also used to prevent judicial review by claiming that the review has now come too late. There are two primary exceptions to this prohibition: new evidence and changed circumstances. However, courts and agencies are reluctant to permit challengers to use these exceptions as often as should be statutorily allowed, an area that scholarship has been neglected.

This Article fills the gap by exploring this aspect of administrative finality, looking at the important government …

Barring Judicial Review, Laura E. Dolbow

Vanderbilt Law Review

Whether judicial review is available is one of the most hotly contested issues in administrative law. Recently, laws that prohibit judicial review have sparked debate in the Medicare, immigration, and patent contexts. These debates are continuing in challenges to the recently created Medicare price negotiation program. Yet despite debates about the removal of judicial review, little is known about how often, and in what contexts, Congress has expressly precluded review. This Article provides new insights about express preclusion by conducting an empirical study of the U.S. Code. It creates an original dataset of laws that expressly preclude judicial review of …

A Theory Of Law For The Next Founding Generation, David N. Mcneill, Emily Tucker

CPT Papers & Reports

At the present moment, the greatest threat to our constitutional democracy, and perhaps to our survival as a nation, is the autocratic aspiration of a President who claims to have been saved by God to institute a new era of American imperialism and interplanetary manifest destiny. It might seem in this context, with a President issuing executive orders that aggressively invite constitutional challenge, and a Vice-President who has advocated that the President should ignore Supreme Court rulings he deems illegitimate, that arguments about constitutional legal theory could only be of theoretical interest. That would be true if our constitution were …

Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

You Be The Judge: Analyzing When The Federal Arbitration Act's Judicial Review Standards Apply In State Court, Max Birmingham

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article addresses whether, when the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs an arbitration, the FAA’s judicial review standards apply in state court and preempt application of different state law judicial review standards. This argument proceeds as follows: Part I provides an introduction. Part II analyzes the procedural reform intent of the FAA and why the statute seeks to standardize the arbitration process. Part III reviews the judicial review of arbitration awards as promulgated in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. Part IV reviews the generations of FAA cases which have been held to be preempted by SCOTUS. Part V …

Dysfunction, Deference, And Judicial Review, Barry Friedman, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

This symposium poses a provocative question: Should judges exercising the power of judicial review defer to the political branches as a means of giving voice to the “will of the people”? The inquiry assumes a connection between majority will and the outputs of the political branches—a connection we argue is frayed, at best, in the current political context.

In the first part of this Essay, we highlight how well-known aspects of our political system—ranging from representational distortions in federal and state governments to the relationship between partisan polarization and the behavior of elected officials—call into question whether political outcomes reliably …

Judicial Review Of Emergency Administration, Desiree Leclercq

American University Law Review

This Article seeks to describe and defend the judicial review of federal agencies’ responses to national emergencies - what I refer to as “emergency administration.” That may prove difficult. Agencies are experts in their respective fields. During emergencies, scholars and policymakers assume that judges will defer to that expertise under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA ). On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court defied that assumption when it blocked the Biden Administration s workplace vaccine and masking rules. Critics now assume that judges are reviewing emergency administration to constrain regulation. Both assumptions conclude that judicial review is neither sincere nor …

Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.

The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands …

Why The Congressional Review Act Should Be Repealed, Alex Lipow

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) is a procedure that allows the political branches to quickly repeal certain regulations promulgated by administrative agencies without going through the arduous rule-making process traditionally required. Although it had been successfully used only once before 2017, President Trump and Republicans in Congress used the CRA to repeal sixteen regulations in 2017 and 2018 while President Biden and Democrats in Congress used the CRA three times in 2021. Because the CRA has been used rarely, and its central provisions are barely adjudicated in the judiciary, there are interesting legal questions about how expansively the law may …

The Constitution And Democracy In Troubled Times, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

Does textualism and originalism approach positively impact democracy?

Clashing Canons And The Contract Clause, T. Leigh Anenson, Jennifer K. Gershberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article is the first in-depth examination of substantive canons that judges use to interpret public pension legislation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The resolution of constitutional controversies concerning pension reform will have a profound influence on government employment. The assessment begins with a general discussion of these interpretive techniques before turning to their operation in public pension litigation. It concentrates on three clashing canons: the remedial (purpose) canon, the “no contract” canon (otherwise known as the unmistakability doctrine), and the constitutional avoidance canon. For these three canons routinely employed in pension law, there …

Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Invisible Border Wall And The Dangers Of Internal Agency Control, Jill E. Family

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Administrative law has long struggled to determine the appropriate balance between internal and external control over federal agencies. Some scholars posit that internal agency controls (those from within the executive branch) are optimal checks on agency behavior. In fact, some argue that external control (from Congress or the courts) is detrimental to agency governance. This Article presents a cautionary tale for those who discount the role of external control; it depicts a case study that poses a major challenge to those who theorize that internal agency controls are a sufficient check on agency behavior.

This case study analyzes the Trump …

The Structure Of Intermediate Review, R. Randall Kelso

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Today, there are two well-established versions of intermediate review: stand- ard intermediate review, used for cases like gender discrimination or content-neutral regulations of speech in a public forum, and a heightened intermediate review standard used for content-based, subject-matter regulations of commercial speech under Central Hudson. Yet, in actual use, four other kinds of intermediate review tests have been formulated by the Court in some cases. These four should be viewed as “mutations” of the two kinds of intermediate review proper to apply. This Article discusses both the well-established versions of intermediate review, and the four variations on intermediate review applied …

Prospective Overruling Unravelled, Samuel Beswick

All Faculty Publications

Judges have a dual role: they decide cases and they determine the law. These functions are conventionally understood to be intertwined: adjudication leads to case law, and disputes over judge-made laws lead to adjudication. Because judgments involve the resolution of past disputes, judge-made law is retrospective. The retrospective nature of judicial law-making can seem to work an injustice in hard cases. It appears unfair and inefficient for novel judicial decisions to apply to conduct occurring prior to the date judgment is handed down. A proposed solution is to separate the law-making and adjudicatory functions of courts. This is the technique …

In Defense Of (Circuit) Court-Packing, Xiao Wang

Michigan Law Review Online

Proposals to pack the Supreme Court have gained steam recently. Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg endorsed a court-packing plan at the start of his campaign, and several other candidates also indicated a willingness to consider such a plan, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Legal scholars have similarly called upon Congress to increase the size of the Supreme Court, particularly following the heated confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. These suggestions for Court reform have only gotten more pronounced with the recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the subsequent nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and the …