scholarly journals Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 410-444
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Weeks Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Challenge ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Federal Laws

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the “Act”) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as to individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on the allocation of power between the federal government and the states. While states may have no greater claim to judicial review of federal laws than individuals, they should not have any less.The Supreme Court will not have to reach this particular procedural conundrum to decide the merits of the Florida lawsuit on which it granted certiorari because the particular constellation of plaintiffs before the Court covers all fronts.

scholarly journals Sovereign Immunity and Interstate Government Tort

2021 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Louise Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Government Action ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Of Power

This paper argues that the Supreme Court made a serious mistake last term, when, in a case of interstate government tort, it tore up useful options that should be available to each state for the rare cases in which they would be of service. In seeking to insulate a state from liability when its employee intrudes on a sister state’s territory and causes injury there, the Court stripped every state of power, in cases of interstate government tort, to try injuries occurring on its own territory to its own residents—an unprecedented disregard of a state’s acknowledged traditional interests. Indeed, the Court went beyond interstate government tort and seemed to say that the Constitution prohibits litigation against a state in all cases, whether to enforce state or federal law, whether in state or federal courts. It is argued that the Court’s originalist and structural arguments cannot withstand scrutiny. Moreover, the Court’s position, if firmly established, would balk the actual interests even of a state as defendant. The states typically do see a need to meet their tort responsibilities. Real damage has been done, but it is argued that conservative and liberal views on judicial review of government action in time may well converge to put an end to judicial abnegation of the duty to place government at all levels under the rule of law.

scholarly journals The Supreme Court of Canada Long-Gun Registry Decision: The Constitutional Question Behind an Intergovernmental Relations Failure

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Peach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Intergovernmental Cooperation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Refusal To Participate ◽  
Turn Over

In 2012, Parliament repealed the federal law that had established a mandatory long-gun registry. The law to repeal the long-gun registry also provided for the destruction of the data contained therein. Quebec, however, expressed its intention to establish its own gun-control scheme and asked the federal government for its data on long-guns owned by residents of Quebec.  When the federal government refused to turn over the data from the long-gun registry, despite the fact that Quebec government offi cials had access to the data while the long-gun registry was in operation, Quebec challenged the constitutionality of the federal law providing for the destruction of the data and sought an order requiring the federal government to turn over the data to Quebec. Th e federal government’s refusal to participate in an act of intergovernmental cooperation began a three-year round of constitutional litigation that concluded in March of 2015 with a split decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.

Party, Policy, or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS M. KECK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Behavior ◽  
Policy Conflict ◽  
Insufficient Attention ◽  
Comprehensive Account ◽  
The Supreme Court

This paper explores three competing accounts of judicial review by comparing the enacting and invalidating coalitions for each of the fifty-three federal statutes struck down by the Supreme Court during its 1981 through 2005 terms. When a Republican judicial coalition invalidates a Democratic statute, the Court's decision is consistent with a partisan account, and when a conservative judicial coalition invalidates a liberal statute, the decision is explicable on policy grounds. But when an ideologically mixed coalition invalidates a bipartisan statute, the decision may have reflected an institutional divide between judges and legislators rather than a partisan or policy conflict. Finding more cases consistent with this last explanation than either of the others, I suggest that the existing literature has paid insufficient attention to the possibility of institutionally motivated judicial behavior, and more importantly, that any comprehensive account of the Court's decisions will have to attend to the interaction of multiple competing influences on the justices.

WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT DECISIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S COUNTER-TERRORISM BODIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 82-92
Author(s):  
Artem V. Rudenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
System Construction ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The relevance of the article stems from the adoption by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation of rules on administrative liability for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in situations of conflict with federal law regulations, caused by adoption of the Federal Law No. 82-FZ of 18 April 2018. This contradiction calls into question the conformity of the adopted norms of the laws on administrative liability of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the principle of legality, as one of the basic principles of the State’s legal system construction. The purpose of the article is to develop a position on legal conduct in a situation of con-flict with the legal norms of federal legislation in establishing administrative liability by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The possibility of establishing administrative liability at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation After the adoption of the Federal Law No 82-FZ of 18 April 2018 «On Amendments to the articles 5 and 5.1 of the Federal Law «On Counteracting Terrorism» legal conflict in the regulation of these powers has arisen. These changes affected not only the regulation of the above-mentioned powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, but also the system of sources of administrative liability, since Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation states: administrative liability source system refers only to the Code and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The article contains an analysis of possible interpretations of the provisions of federal laws on the powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to establish adminis-trative liability for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation. Possible interpretations of the term «decisions of an anti-terrorist body» are analyzed from the point of view of the goals and tasks of formation of these bodies, their powers and organizational-steam form. The study concludes that it is necessary to comply with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation when determining responsibility for failure to implement decisions of the anti-terrorist bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. It is recommended that the legislatures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation refrain from adopting such norms. It is recommended that the judicial authorities should take into account the provisions of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 March 2005 No 5 « On certain issues raised by the courts in the application of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation».

Tom DeLay’s Redistricting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Legal Challenge ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
2004 Election ◽  
Legal Battle

This chapter examines the Supreme Court case stemming from the issue of redistricting in Texas. After the 2002 election, Texas's congressional delegation consisted of seventeen Democrats and fifteen Republicans. After the 2004 election, the delegation was eleven Democrats and twenty-one Republicans. This change was the result of the 2003 redistricting effort demanded and orchestrated by United States House majority leader Tom DeLay. It completed the process of making Texas a Republican state. In 2003, Representative Joe Crabb of the House Redistricting Committee introduced a redistricting bill that would spark a legal battle between Republicans and Democrats in Texas. The chapter discusses the Democrats' legal challenge to this bill over the issue of gerrymandering as well as the winners and losers from the litigation.

Estoppel

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Chartered Accountants ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Disciplinary Committee

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel applied to successive complaints before a professional disciplinary body, that disciplinary proceedings were civil in nature and that therefore the principles of res judicata applied, and that there was no reason why cause of action estoppel should not apply to successive sets of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by C-W, a chartered accountant, against the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision by the Committee to refuse to dismiss a second complaint based on the same facts of a first complaint that had been dismissed on the merits.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document