Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …
A Survey Of The Literature On Federal Appellate Practice And Procedure, Thomas E. Baker
A Survey Of The Literature On Federal Appellate Practice And Procedure, Thomas E. Baker
FIU Law Review
This is a survey of the literature related to appellate practice and procedure before the United States Courts of Appeals for the benefit of lawyers and judges and scholars. It is reproduced with permission from THOMAS E. BAKER, A PRIMER ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 3d ed. 2023) available at: https://www.fjc.gov/content/379899/primer-jurisdiction-us-courts-appeals-third-edition). This origin explains the scattered references in the entries to “this Primer.”
Curbing Remedies For Official Wrongs: The Need For Bivens Suits In National Security Cases, Peter Margulies
Curbing Remedies For Official Wrongs: The Need For Bivens Suits In National Security Cases, Peter Margulies
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Statutory Damages And Standing After Spokeo V. Robins, Richard L. Heppner Jr.
Statutory Damages And Standing After Spokeo V. Robins, Richard L. Heppner Jr.
Law Faculty Publications
In Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may no longer infer the existence of an injury in fact—and thus constitutional standing—from a statute’s use of a particular remedy, such as a statutory or liquidated damages provision. But Spokeo also directed courts to consider whether Congress intended to identify an intangible harm and elevate it to the status of a “concrete” injury in fact when deciding standing questions. This article argues that courts can and should continue to pay close attention to the structure and language of statutory remedial provisions in making that assessment. The article proposes …
The Case Against Employment Tester Standing Under Title Vii And 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Michael Bowling
The Case Against Employment Tester Standing Under Title Vii And 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Michael Bowling
Michigan Law Review
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment, public accommodations, public facilities, public schools, and federal benefit programs. Title VII of this Act directed its aim specifically at stamping out prejudice in employment. Four years later, the Supreme Court resurrected the provisions of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which, among other things, protects citizens, regardless of race or color, in their right to "make and enforce [employment] contracts." Together, Title VII and § 1981 serve as the primary legal bases for challenging racially discriminatory actioris by private employers. More than thirty years …
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
The Standing Of The United States: How Criminal Prosecutions Show That Standing Doctrine Is Looking For Answers In All The Wrong Places, Edward A. Hartnett
Michigan Law Review
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing in order for her request for judicial intervention to constitute a "case" or "controversy" within the jurisdiction of a federal court; it also insists that the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing requires (1) that the litigant suffer an "injury in fact"; (2) that the person against whom the judicial intervention is sought have caused the injury; and (3) that the requested judicial intervention redress the injury. The requisite injury in fact, the Court repeatedly declares, must be "personal," "concrete and particularized," and "actual or …