Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- International law (2)
- Detainee (1)
- Enemy combatant (1)
- Federal preemption (1)
- Habeas relief (1)
-
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Justice Breyer (1)
- Justice Scalia (1)
- Legal Process School (1)
- Minorities (1)
- National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1)
- National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (1)
- No-fault compensation (1)
- Plain meaning rule (1)
- Purposes and objectives (1)
- Purposive approach (1)
- Remedies (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Terrorism (1)
- Textualism (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
Of Civil Wrongs And Rights: Kiyemba V. Obama And The Meaning Of Freedom, Separation Of Powers, And The Rule Of Law Ten Years After 9/11, Katherine L. Vaughns, Heather L. Williams
Of Civil Wrongs And Rights: Kiyemba V. Obama And The Meaning Of Freedom, Separation Of Powers, And The Rule Of Law Ten Years After 9/11, Katherine L. Vaughns, Heather L. Williams
Faculty Scholarship
This article is about the rise and fall of continued adherence to the rule of law, proper application of the separation of powers doctrine, and the meaning of freedom for a group of seventeen Uighurs—a Turkic Muslim ethnic minority whose members reside in the Xinjiang province of China—who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002. Most scholars regard the trilogy of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush as demonstrating the Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold the rule of law during the war on terror. The recent experience of the Uighurs …
A Case Study In The Superiority Of The Purposive Approach To Statutory Interpretation: Bruesewitz V. Wyeth , Donald G. Gifford, William L. Reynolds, Andrew M. Murad
A Case Study In The Superiority Of The Purposive Approach To Statutory Interpretation: Bruesewitz V. Wyeth , Donald G. Gifford, William L. Reynolds, Andrew M. Murad
Faculty Scholarship
This Article uses the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth to examine the textualist or “plain meaning” approach to statutory interpretation. For more than a quarter-century, Justice Scalia has successfully promoted textualism, usually associated with conservatism, among his colleagues. In Bruesewitz, Scalia, writing for the majority, and his liberal colleague Justice Sotomayer, in dissent, both employed textualism to determine if the plaintiffs, whose child was allegedly harmed by a vaccine, could pursue common-law tort claims or whether their remedies were limited to those available under the no-fault compensation system established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Despite …
Rethinking "Effective Remedies": Remedial Deterrence In International Courts, Sonja Starr
Rethinking "Effective Remedies": Remedial Deterrence In International Courts, Sonja Starr
Faculty Scholarship
One of the bedrock principles of contemporary international law is that victims of human rights violations have a right to an “effective remedy.” International courts usually hold that effective remedies must at least make the victim whole, and they sometimes adopt even stronger remedial rules for particular categories of human rights violations. Moreover, courts have refused to permit departure from these rules on the basis of competing social interests. Human rights scholars have not questioned this approach, frequently pushing for even stronger judicial remedies for rights violations. Yet in many cases, strong and inflexible remedial rules can perversely undermine human …