Judges Commons^™

Introduction; The Past, Present And Future Of Free Speech, Joel M. Gora

Journal of Law and Policy

This short paper introduces the papers and commentary produced at two significant First Amendment occasions. First was a 40^th anniversary celebration of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the fountainhead ruling on the intersection between campaign finance restrictions and First Amendment rights. The questions were discussed provocatively by two of the leading players in that decision, James Buckley himself, now a retired United States Circuit Judge, and Ira Glasser, former head of the ACLU who helped organize a strange bedfellows, left-right coalition to challenge the new federal election campaign laws on First Amendment grounds. …

Why Judicial Deference To Administrative Fact-Finding Is Unconstitutional, John Gibbons

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Government By Injunction,” Legal Elites, And The Making Of The Modern Federal Courts, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

The tendency of legal discourse to obscure the processes by which social and political forces shape the law’s development is well known, but the field of federal courts in American constitutional law may provide a particularly clear example of this phenomenon. According to conventional accounts, Congress’s authority to regulate the lower federal courts’ “jurisdiction”—generally understood to include their power to issue injunctions— has been a durable feature of American constitutional law since the founding. By contrast, the story I tell in this essay is one of change. During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, many jurists considered the federal …

Amendment Creep, Jonathan L. Marshfield

Michigan Law Review

To most lawyers and judges, constitutional amendment rules are nothing more than the technical guidelines for changing a constitution’s text. But amendment rules contain a great deal of substance that can be relevant to deciding myriad constitutional issues. Indeed, judges have explicitly drawn on amendment rules when deciding issues as far afield as immigration, criminal procedure, free speech, and education policy. The Supreme Court, for example, has reasoned that, because Article V of the U.S. Constitution places no substantive limitations on formal amendment, the First Amendment must protect even the most revolutionary political viewpoints. At the state level, courts have …

The First Amendment And The Police In The Digital Age, Kermit V. Lipez

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Human Rights Law And Racial Hate Speech Regulation In Australia: Reform And Replace?, Dr. Alan Berman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

New Judicial Review In Old Europe, Alyssa S. King

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Between Judicial Oligarchy And Parliamentary Supremacy: Understanding The Court's Dilemma In Constitutional Judicial Review, Seow Hon Tan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This article considers the dilemma that constitutional judicial review presents to the most well-meaning of judges — that of navigating the narrow and difficult road between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oligarchy. It examines the Singapore Court of Appeal’s delineation of legal and extra-legal considerations in view of Ronald Dworkin’s theory of adjudication in determining the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code in Lim Meng Suang v. Attorney General. It proposes an alternative natural law approach to constitutional judicial review based on Radbruch’s formula, which helps courts to avoid the pitfalls of judicial idiosyncrasies and usurpation of legislative mandate …

Reconsidering The History Of Open Courts In The Digital Age, Rory B. O'Sullivan, Catherine Connell

Seattle University Law Review

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the State of Washington guarantees, “Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.” The Washington State Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee the public a right to attend legal proceedings and to access court documents separate and apart from the rights of the litigants themselves. Based on this interpretation, the court has struck down laws protecting the identity of both juvenile victims of sexual assault and individuals subject to involuntary commitment hearings. Its interpretation has also compromised the privacy rights of litigants wrongly named in legal …

Book Review Of Constitutional Personae, Michael N. Umberger

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Rights Of Aliens - Citizenship As A Requirement For Admission To The Bar Is A Violation Of Equal Protection, John L. Scott

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

“Criminal Records” - A Comparative Approach, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Constitutional Law - Restriction Of American Citizens’ Right Of Access To Information And Ideas In The Court Of Government Control Of Immigration Is Not Unconstitutional When Supported By A Facially Legitimate Reason, W. P. Bishop, Joseph C. Vanzant

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Erdos V. United States: Expansion Of Extraterritoriality And Revival Of Exterritoriality, Gary I. Strausberg

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The "Chaudhry Court": Deconstructing The "Judicialization Of Politics" In Pakistan, Moeen H. Cheema

Washington International Law Journal

The Supreme Court of Pakistan underwent a remarkable transformation in its institutional role and constitutional position during the tenure of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (2005–2013). This era in Pakistan’s judicial history was also marked by great controversy as the court faced charges that it had engaged in “judicial activism,” acted politically, and violated the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between institutions of the state. This article presents an in-depth analysis of the judicial review actions of the Chaudhry Court and argues that the charge of judicial activism is theoretically unsound and analytically obfuscating. The notion …

The Rise And Fall Of Historic Chief Justices: Constitutional Politics And Judicial Leadership In Indonesia, Stefanus Hendrianto

Washington International Law Journal

In the decade following its inception, the Indonesian Constitutional Court has marked a new chapter in Indonesian legal history, one in which a judicial institution can challenge the executive and legislative branches. This article argues that judicial leadership is the main contributing factor explaining the emergence of judicial power in Indonesia. This article posits that the newly established Indonesian Constitutional Court needed a strong and skilled Chief Justice to build the institution because it had insufficient support from political actors. As the Court lacked a well-established tradition of judicial review, it needed a visionary leader who could maximize the structural …

Constitutional Fig Leaves In Asia, Po Jen Yap

Washington International Law Journal

Constitutional landscapes in Asia are littered with fig leaves. These proverbial fig leaves are legal principles, doctrines, and theories of interpretation that judges appeal to when resolving constitutional disputes. This article uncovers and examines three constitutional fig leaves that are prevalent and flourishing in Asia: 1) formalism and its conceptual variants; 2) the exercise of judicial review that is merely symbolic; and 3) the invocation of vacuous constitutional doctrines. This article further argues that judicial recourse to fig leaves is not intended to deceive anyone about what courts are doing; the fig leaves are on public display merely to demonstrate …

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Nevada Law Journal

Federal magistrate judges are a relatively new creation, officially dating back only to 1968 in a federal judicial system which dates to 1789. Unlike federal district and appellate judges, whose constitutional authority is rooted in Article III, federal magistrate judges are a creation of Congress through Article I. Since their inception as special masters, magistrate judges’ responsibilities have steadily grown, now presiding (with the parties’ consent) over civil as well as misdemeanor criminal trials. The institutional differences between magistrate and district judges are stark: selection, compensation, and tenure, to name a few. At the same time, the roles of these …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Some Structural Dilemmas Of World Organization, C. Wilfred Jenks

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Opinion: Testimony Concerning The Separation Of Powers And The Judiciary, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

Separation of powers and the judiciary - or judicial independence as it is often termed - "refers to the need for courts that are fair and impartial when reviewing cases and rendering decisions, ... [which] requires freedom from outside influence or political intimidation." As recognized by President Ronald Reagan, and scores upon scores of our nation's most preeminent leaders, "[the] independence of the courts from improper political influence is a sacred principle, .... It must always be guarded."

This cornerstone of our free society - judicial independence - has been the bedrock of Kansas' republican form of government since the …

Foreign Policy And The Government Legal Adviser, Henry Darwin

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Law Professors Want Hearing, Vote On Garland, Eric Berger, Kristen M. Blankley, Brian H. Bornstein, Eve M. Brank, Robert C. Denicola, Alan H. Frank, Stephen S. Gealy, Justin Hurwitz, David Landis, Craig M. Lawson, Richard Leiter, William H. Lyons, Richard H. Lawson, Matt Novak, Allen Overcash, Stefanie S. Pearlman, Ross Pesek, Kevin Ruser, Robert F. Schopp, Anthony Schutz, Anna Williams Shavers, Brett C. Stohs, Ryan Sullivan, Richard L. Weiner, Steven L. Willborn, Sandra Zellmer

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Dear Senator Fischer and Senator Sasse,

We write this as citizens, but we all teach at the University of Nebraska College of Law. We hold different political viewpoints and disagree frequentIy with each other on political and legal issues. As law professors, however, we share a deep commitment to the rule of law and an impartial judiciary. We therefore urge you to hold confirmation hearings and a vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Custom Claims And The Code Of Silence, Myriam Gilles

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Merrick Garland Could Help Heal America, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.