scholarly journals Could This Supreme Court Case Affect Robert Mueller?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Good Cause ◽  
At Will

This article examines the then-pending Supreme Court case of Raymond J. Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, and its possible implications for Robert Mueller. At issue in Lucia is the question of whether SEC Administrative Law Judges are “officers” or “employees” of the United States. More precisely, Lucia is arguing that SEC Administrative Law Judges—who are appointed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge—are officers of the United States who constitutionally may be appointed only by the president or by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Implicated in this case is the question of whether administrative law judges must be dischargeable at will or whether, as is now the case, they may be fired only for “good cause.” Fundamentally, whittling away at administrative independence from the president could embolden both President Trump and his advisors to aggressively advocate for a strong “unitary-executive” presidency under which the chief executive is entitled to fire at will any “Officers of the United States”—including Robert Mueller.

Purchasable Offices in Ceded Territory

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Percy Bordwell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Secretary Of War ◽  
Considerable Detail

In the July number of the Journal is given the decision of the Court of Claims in Sanches v. The United States and of the Supreme Court in O’Reilly v. Brooke. Both cases involve the validity of the orders of military governors in former Spanish territory abolishing offices for which a price had been paid and which the holder claimed were private property and thus under the protection of the law of nations and the treaty of peace with Spain. In the Sanches case the office abolished was that of “ numbered procurador of the courts of first instance of the capital of Porto Rico;” in the O’Reilly case the office was that of high sheriff of Havana. In each case the opinion was expressed that the office had ceased with the extinction of Spanish sovereignty, but in the Supreme Court case this was not necessary to the decision, as General Brooke’s liability had already been denied on other grounds, while the opinion on this point was delivered without argument of counsel, without exposition, and without the citation of authority other than that of the Secretary of War in approving General Brooke’s order. It is the opinion of the writer that the holders of those offices were entitled to indemnification. The facts of the O’Reilly controversy will be gone into in considerable detail.

US Supreme Court, Medellín v. Texas: More than an Assiduous Building Inspector?

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN KING GAMBLE ◽  
CHRISTINE M. GIULIANO
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Strong Reaction ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case

AbstractThe US Supreme Court case of José Ernesto Medellín, Petitioner v. Texas, decided on 25 March 2008, has generally been seen as a US refusal to follow unambiguous treaty provisions. There has not been such a strong reaction to US behaviour relative to specific treaty obligations since the 1992 Alvarez-Machain case. The Supreme Court majority (six votes to three) held that ‘neither Avena nor the President's Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law’. The uncomfortable – and to many illogical – conclusion reached by the Court was that even though Avena is an ‘international law obligation on the part of the United States’, it is not binding law within the United States even in the light of an explicit presidential order. While the result may be disappointing, the case should be understood in the context of a legal system that (i) makes treaties part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’; (ii) has developed a complicated concept of self-executing treaties; and (iii) can be hesitant to direct states (sub-national units) to follow presidential directives even on matters of foreign policy.

scholarly journals Tenth Amendment

Federalism-E ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
Lucy Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Tenth Amendment

This paper argues that the Tenth Amendment was a beneficial compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and as a result the Amendment is not a truism, but instead integral to securing state sovereignty and protecting the integrity of federalism.  The paper begins by describing the historical context for the inclusion of the Amendment and the framers’ reasoning for its inclusion. The paper continues on to evaluate the Amendment from its conception until present day. The paper refutes the Amendment as a truism, displaying how the Supreme Court has significantly developed the relevance and use of the Amendment through two major time periods: the interwar period and the years following the Supreme Court case Schechter Corp. v. United States. A variety of Supreme Court cases, peer reviewed articles, and recently published news articles are employed to illustrate the Amendment’s development and relevance to federalism in the United States.

scholarly journals A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Hector R. Lozada ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Court Case ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
Faculty Unions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Yeshiva University

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document