Legal Remedies Commons^™

Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

On any given day, it seems, President Donald Trump can be found attacking, threatening, or punishing the press and other individuals whose speech he dislikes. His actions, moreover, inevitably raise the question: Do any of these individuals or organizations (or any future ones) have a viable claim against the President for violating their First Amendment rights?

One might think that the ability to sue the President for violation of the First Amendment would be relatively settled. The answer, however, is not quite that straightforward. Due to several unique qualities about the First Amendment and the presidency, it is not entirely …

Deterrence, David Crump

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

Finality Of A Conviction: A Noncitizen's Right To Procedural Due Process, Daniela Mondragon

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

A Single Symbolic Dollar: How Nominal Damages Can Keep Lawsuits Alive, Megan E. Cambre

Georgia Law Review

The Eleventh Circuit's August 2017 opinion in
Flanigan's Enterprises v. City of Sandy Springs
deepened a circuit split regarding the role of
nominal damages in the justiciabilityanalysis. The
critical question is whether, in cases involving
constitutional violations, a claim for nominal
damages alone suffices to confer standing or to
defeat mootness when other forms of relief are
unavailable or moot. The Second, Fifth, and Ninth
Circuits have all held that nominal damages alone
are enough, but not without contention from
dissenting judges. The First, Third, Fourth,
Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuitshave considered
the question-but have not conclusively decided its
answer. …

Revisionist Municipal Liability, Avidan Y. Cover

Georgia Law Review

The current constitutional torts system under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 affords little relief to victims of
government wrongdoing. Victims of police brutality
seeking accountability and compensation from local
police departments find their remedies severely limited
because the municipal liability doctrine demands
plaintiffs meet near-impossible standards of proof
relating to policies and causation.
This Article provides a revisionist historical account
of the origin of the Supreme Court's municipal liability
doctrine. Most private claims for damages against
cities or police departments do not implicate the
doctrine's early federalism concerns over protracted
federal judicial interference with local governance.
Meanwhile, the federal government imposes …