A Constitutional History of the U.S. Supreme Court by Richard J. Regan

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-746
Author(s):  
Scott D. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals How the Federal Cause of Action Relates to Rights, Remedies, and Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Preis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is largely distinct from rights, closely related to (and sometimes synonymous with) remedies, and distinct from jurisdiction except where Congress instructs otherwise or the case implicates sovereign immunity. Sorting out these relationships provides several benefits, including refining the doctrine of prudential standing, clarifying the grounds for federal jurisdiction, and dispelling claims that Congress lacks power over certain causes of action.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Donald W. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Court Records ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

This introduction reframes the history of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Hague v. CIO (1939) that guaranteed speech and assembly rights in public municipal forums under federal law for the first time. It lifts the story out of standard treatment as a product of police repression of labor organizers by city boss Frank Hague, exploring instead the case’s broader roots in multiple changes in city governance, policing, the labor movement, civil liberties law, and anticommunism and antifascism politics of the late New Deal era. It urges examination of all sides of the controversy, winners and losers, scrutinizing evidence beyond antiboss sources, including varied newspapers, municipal reports, trial transcripts, labor archives, and federal court records. It views the case as part of a constitutional watershed.

The Karlsruhe Phenomenon

2020 ◽  
pp. 32-69
Author(s):  
Matthias Jestaedt
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Constitutional Development ◽  
New Creation ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The U.S

This chapter stresses that nothing in the Federal Constitutional Court’s growth was preordained. It depicts the Court’s initially fraught relations with political actors, ordinary judges, and legal academics, scrutinizing the institutional peculiarities that have made the Court what it is. The manner and direction in which the Court developed was recognizable merely in outline in the fundamental decision by the constitution’s founders for an institutionally independent constitutional adjudication, which according to the size and extent of its jurisdiction would be powerful. This was due to the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court in its totality was unprecedented both in terms of constitutional history and comparative constitutional development: during the deliberations on the Basic Law and Federal Constitutional Court Act, there were repeated specific references to the Staatsgerichtshof in Weimar and the U.S. Supreme Court. But both in its numerous distinctive details and even in the overall concept, the constitutional court of the Basic Law represents a new creation.

scholarly journals Speaking with One Voice on the Recognition of States

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Campbell McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
The U.S

At first blush, the recent judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v Kerry (Zivotofsky II) reads as a strikingly American affair concerning the enduring force of the separation of powers under a written Constitution. Finding that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign states and their territory, the Court holds that a statute of Congress encroaches upon this power and declares it unconstitutional. The reasoning of both the Court and the minority justices is largely a narrative of U.S. Constitutional history. So one might ask: does this decision really have anything to say of significance outside the U.S. context about the scope of the executive function in foreign relations?

Runaway Jury: An Analysis of State Laws Concerning Juror Impeachment

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-421
Author(s):  
Brenda I. Rowe ◽  
Wesley S. McCann
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Racial Bias ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Current State ◽  
Jury Deliberations ◽  
History Of ◽  
Motivating Factor ◽  
Clear Statement ◽  
The U.S

The no impeachment rule bars the admission into evidence of juror testimony regarding jury deliberations in proceedings questioning the validity of a verdict. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court created a constitutional exception to the no impeachment rule to allow impeachment of a verdict by a juror’s testimony regarding a fellow juror’s clear statement during jury deliberations indicating reliance on racial bias as a substantial motivating factor for that juror’s vote. This study traces the history of the no impeachment rule, analyzes the Court’s decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, examines variation in exceptions provided by states’ statutory no impeachment rules, and discusses the likely impact of Pena-Rodriguez as well as policy implications of the current state of no impeachment statutes.

The Combat Exclusion and the Role of Women in the Military

Hypatia ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Wagner Decew
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Women In The Military ◽  
History Of ◽  
Role Of Women ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

I first discuss reasons for feminists to attend to the role of women in the military, despite past emphasis on antimilitarism. I then focus on the exclusion of women from combat duty, reviewing its sanction by the U.S. Supreme Court and the history of its adoption. I present arguments favoring the exclusion, defending strong replies to each, and demonstrate that reasoning from related cases and feminist analyses of equality explain why exclusion remains entrenched.

The Supreme Court and McCarthy-Era Repression

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Lichtman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Repression ◽  
Mccarthy Era ◽  
Political Events ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Comprehensive History ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Public Criticism

This book provides a comprehensive history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in “Communist” cases during the McCarthy era. The book shows the Court’s vulnerability to public criticism and attacks by the elected branches during periods of political repression. The book describes every Communist-related decision of the era (none is omitted), placing them in the context of political events and revealing the range and intrusiveness of McCarthy-era repression. Demonstrating keen insight into the Supreme Court’s inner workings and making extensive use of the justices’ papers, the book examines the dynamics of the Court’s changes in direction and the relationships and rivalries among its justices, including such towering figures as Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, and William J. Brennan, Jr.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document