Jurisprudence Commons^™

Dogma, Discrimination, And Doctrinal Disarray: A New Test To Define Harm Under Title Vii, Zach Islam

Brooklyn Law Review

Historically, federal courts have used the “adverse employment action” test in Title VII disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation cases to determine whether a plaintiff has suffered adequate harm. This note argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed. At the outset, the test is a judicial power grab with no support in the statutory language. What is more, it fails to uphold the plain policy purposes for Title VII by largely ignoring evidence of discriminatory acts in the workplace that Congress sought to prevent in passing the statute. Consequently, Title VII plaintiffs get the short end of the stick with …

Accountability Courts In Georgia: Judges In The State Of Georgia Explain How They Have Been Empowered By Visionary Political And Judicial Leaders To Tackle Crime, Prison Population, Mental Illness, And Drug Dependency Through Service In Accountability Courts, W. James Sizemore Jr.

Mercer Law Review

Georgia leads the way nationally when it comes to promoting and funding the expansion of accountability courts (commonly called drug courts or mental health courts). The fact that the effort to expand such courts in Georgia was spearheaded by Republican Governor Nathan Deal is surprising to some. This article provides a peek behind the curtain at the massive judicial and political effort to make accountability courts an essential part of criminal justice reform in the State of Georgia.

The article begins with a brief look at the history of accountability courts in Georgia, specifically focusing on several Superior Court Judges …

Arbitration's Unraveling, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state-law policies that stand as an obstacle to enforcement of the class-banning arbitration clauses that companies tuck into standard-form contracts. In that time, plaintiffs’ lawyers have tried challenging class action–banning arbitration provisions on myriad legal grounds, as well as pressing for federal and state legislation to undo the Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Neither strategy has borne much fruit—until now. In the past few years, congressional action has exempted specific categories of cases from mandatory arbitration, suggesting that an area-by-area …

Justice William J. Brennan Jr.'S Teleological Jurisprudence And What It Means For Constitutional Interpretation Today, Susan D. Carle

University of Richmond Law Review

Observers commonly think of the Warren and Roberts Courts as polar opposites in their modes of constitutional interpretation. But how different are their approaches really? To be sure, the values that underlie the jurisprudence of the Warren and Roberts Courts are dramatically different, but their methodologies for constitutional adjudication are similar in a crucial respect: both Courts frequently employ a teleological approach. They look, in other words, to ends outside of the law to determine the direction in which constitutional law should be heading. To prove this point, this Article examines the methods and values Justice William J. Brennan Jr. …

Non-Extraterritoriality, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The extraterritorial application of statutes has received a great deal of scholarly attention in recent years, but very little attention has been paid the non-extraterritoriality of statutes, by which I mean their effect on cases beyond their specified territorial reach. The question matters when a choice-of-law rule or a contractual choice-of-law clause directs application of a state’s law and the state has a statute that, because of a provision limiting its external reach, does not reach the case. On one view, the state has no law for cases beyond the reach of the statute. The territorial limitation is a choice-of-law …

Four Futures Of Chevron Deference, Daniel Walters

Faculty Scholarship

In two upcoming cases, the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which, since 1984, has required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of otherwise ambiguous statutes. In this short essay, I defend the proposition that, even on death’s door, Chevron deference is likely to be resurrected, and I offer a simple positive political theory model that helps explain why. The core insight of this model is that the prevailing approach to judicial review of agency interpretations of law is politically contingent—that is, it is likely to represent an equilibrium that efficiently maximizes the Supreme Court’s …

Outcome Reasons And Process Reasons In Normative Constitutional Theory, Lawrence B. Solum

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional theory is a mess. Disagreements about originalism and living constitutionalism have become intractable. Constitutional theorists make some arguments that seem clearly fallacious and advance proposals that are pie in the sky. One of the reasons for the mess is an overreliance by constitutional theorists on “outcome reasons,” justifications that rely on the theorist’s beliefs about what outcomes are good and what outcomes are bad. This outcome-drive approach is exemplified by the so-called “canonical cases” argument, which evaluates positions in normative constitutional theory on the basis of its counterfactual implications for a handful of prior decisions of the Supreme Court. …

Loose Ends In Singapore Equal Protection Doctrine, Wei Yao, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

A trilogy of landmark Singapore Court of Appeal decisions has defined the landscape of constitutional equal protection doctrine in Singapore: Lim Meng Suang, Syed Suhail and Tan Seng Kee. While this trio of cases has laid the doctrinal foundation for the constitutional right to equality in Singapore, three loose ends remain for clarification. First, what is the relationship between the legal tests articulated in Syed Suhail and Lim Meng Suang? Second, what is the relationship between both steps in the Syed Suhail test? Third, what is the distinction between the Syed Suhail test and the common law judicial review ground …

No Need To Reinvent The Wheel: The Positive Relationship Between Green Technology And Patent Enforcement, Addison S. Fowler

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

The Surprising Result Of The Supreme Court Case That Allowed Slurs In Brands, Michael Goodyear

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments In The Jurisprudence Concerning The Delimitation Of The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Analysis Of The Mauritius/Maldives And Nicaragua V. Colombia Cases, Yoshifumi Tanaka

International Law Studies

This article examines recent developments in the jurisprudence related to the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles by analyzing the Mauritius/Maldives and Nicaragua v. Colombia cases. The ITLOS Special Chamber in Mauritius/Maldives did not delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles due to applying the standard of “significant uncertainty.” In this regard, the scope of and criterion for the standard of “significant uncertainty” merit discussion. The ICJ, in Nicaragua v. Colombia, identified a rule of customary international law that the continental shelf of a State beyond 200 nautical miles may not extend within 200 nautical miles …

Shadows Or Forgeries? Explaining Legal Normativity, Alma Diamond

Fellow, Adjunct, Lecturer, and Research Scholar Works

Legal norms serve as practical standards for individuals and officials. While this ‘normative aspect’ of law is widely acknowledged, its significance for theories of law remains contested. In this paper, I examine three views on the matter. First, that we should explain legal norms as reason-giving. Second, that we should explain legal discourse as being about reasons for action. Third, that we should explain law as capable of being reason-giving. I survey some challenges associated with each of these views. What they have in common is an implicit assumption about the form that normative explanation must take: that it must …

Ukraine’S Supreme Court: Upholding Justice Amid War, Olena Kibenko, Cristobal Diaz

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

The Wages Of Crying Roe: Some Realism About Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health Organization, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationcannot be taken seriously. The Court’s stated rationale for rejecting continued protection of the abortion right—that abortion is not deeply rooted in nineteenth century history and tradition—applies with equal force to other substantive due process rights that the DobbsCourt repeatedly insisted were not under threat even without considering stare decisis, including contraception, sexual intimacy between consenting adults, and same-sex marriage. One should add inter-racial marriage and protection from involuntary sterilization to that list. Rather than applying its draconian version of the “history and tradition” test in a …

Abortion Politics And The Rise Of Movement Jurists, Robert L. Tsai, Mary Ziegler

Faculty Scholarship

This Article employs the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and litigation in its wake as the jumping off point to reconsider the connections between judges, the Constitution, and social movements. That movements influence constitutional law, and that judicial pronouncements in turn are reshaped by politics, is well-established. But, while these accounts of legal change depend upon judges to embrace movement ideas, less has been written about the conditions under which judicial entrenchment can be expected to take place. There may, in fact, be different types of judicial dispositions towards external political phenomena.

In this Article, …

The Physical-Emotional Distinction In Tort, Philip Petrov

Faculty Scholarship

Several legal scholars have recently argued that U.S. tort law’s physical-emotional distinction commits tort to the objectionable position of mind-body dualism, but they have not considered the distinction’s role as an aid to judicial cognition and decision-making. Drawing primarily on the law of negligent infliction of emotional distress, this essay argues that tort’s physical-emotional distinction is not a relic of mind-body dualism but a heuristic that judges have used to structure and simplify the difficult but unavoidable task of drawing lines between legally cognizable and non-cognizable harm. The analysis has at least three normative implications: (1) users of tort’s physical-emotional …

Law's Legitimacy: Lon Fuller In A Consequentialist Frame, Daniel L. Feldman

Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

This thesis argues that Lon Fuller’s approach to jurisprudence offers more important support to the rule of law than has been generally recognized. It argues further that a consequentialist lens allows clearer views of Fuller’s strengths in this regard, despite Fuller’s own resistance to consequentialism and despite consequentialism’s blindness to some of Fuller’s depth and texture. This thesis supplies a formula, although one intended only as a guide to thinking, not for actual computation, to drive judicial decision-making. The inputs into this formula are six values widely shared in the United States, modified by case-by-case salience. Kantian deontology strongly influences …

The Problem Of Extravagant Inferences, Cass Sunstein

Georgia Law Review

Judges and lawyers sometimes act as if a constitutional or statutory term must, as a matter of semantics, be understood to have a particular meaning, when it could easily be understood to have another meaning, or several other meanings. When judges and lawyers act as if a legal term has a unique semantic meaning, even though it does not, they should be seen to be drawing extravagant inferences. Some constitutional provisions are treated this way; consider the idea that the vesting of executive power in a President of the United States necessarily includes the power to remove, at will, a …

Restricting The Meanings According To The Hanafi Fundamentalists: Principles And Results, Abdeljalil Zuheir Damrah Prof.

UAEU Law Journal

This research aims to review the phenomenon of restricting interpretations among Hanafi fundamentalists, through an investigation of the historical stages and its most prominent symbols, in light of the clarification of the criteria that limit the sections of meanings, and the foundations on which the restriction was based.

To achieve this goal, the study followed the inductive approach that confines the history of Hanafi fundamentalist research on the subject of verbal meanings, while relying on the deductive analytical approach. It is based on tracing the fundamentalist tendencies that appeared among the late Hanafi scholars to clarify the nature of these …

Strengthening The Home Front To Combat The Corona Pandemic: Al-Juwayni As A Model, Abeer Jassim Al Shehab Dr.

UAEU Law Journal

derived from the book "Al-Ghayathi", and this topic is "fortifying the home front".

The research aims to extrapolate the jurisprudence of Imam al-Juwayni in fortifying the home front through his book, and the consolidation of the term fortification of the home front of the state by studying its concept and legitimacy from the legal evidence, and its comprehensive aspects in Juwayni’s jurisprudence with regard to the Corona pandemic; Such as economic and health security, compared to the decisions of the State of Kuwait in the face of the Corona pandemic and its contemporary applications, coupled with a statement of the …