scholarly journals Rethinking the Reasonable Response: Safeguarding the Promise of Kingsley for Conditions of Confinement

2021 ◽  
pp. 829
Author(s):  
Hanna Rutkowski
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Context Of Use

Nearly five million individuals are admitted to America’s jails each year, and at any given time, two-thirds of those held in jail have not been convicted of a crime. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, these pretrial detainees are functionally protected by the same standard as convicted prisoners, despite the fact that they are formally protected by different constitutional amendments. A 2015 decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, declared that a different standard would apply to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners in the context of use of force: consistent with the Constitution’s mandate that they not be punished at all, pretrial detainees would no longer need to demonstrate that officials subjectively intended to harm them, only that the force they applied was objectively unreasonable. Courts of appeals have begun to extend this shift to claims involving conditions of confinement, but the promise of that move is threatened by the availability of a cost defense for officials who respond reasonably to detainees’ needs given the resource constraints they face. This Note argues that pretrial detainees can only be adequately protected from punishment if the reasonable response includes an affirmative duty to notify superiors of those constraints.

FINALITY OR FAIRNESS?

2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-480
Author(s):  
Stephen Heaton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court

THE finality of proceedings, resource constraints, a presumption of guilt, and the existence of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) all combine to outweigh the principle of fairness for a convicted individual. Such was the stark conclusion of the Supreme Court in dismissing Kevin Nunn's application to force prosecution authorities to grant access to material which he believed would help him get his conviction quashed: R. (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2014] UKSC 37, [2014] 3 W.L.R. 77.

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

The South Confronts the Court: The Southern Manifesto of 1956

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Badger
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The South ◽  
The Supreme Court

On Monday, March 12, Georgia's senior senator, Walter George, rose in the Senate to read a manifesto blasting the Supreme Court. The Manifesto condemned the “unwarranted decision” of the Court in Brown as a “clear abuse of judicial power” in which the Court “with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.” The signers pledged themselves “to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.” It was signed by nineteen of the twenty-two southern senators, by every member of the congressional delegations from Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, by all but one of the representatives from Florida, all but one from Tennessee, all but three from North Carolina, and half of the Texas delegation.

The Administration of Kosovo and East-Timor by the International Community

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Ruffert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
East Timor ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Direct Administration ◽  
Context Of Use

The intensive debate about the legality of NATO air strikes from March to June 1999 in the context of use of force, Chapter VII competences and humanitarian intervention1 including their implication in the domestic constitutional law of NATO members,2 may be concealed another development the importance of which in modern Public International Law should not be underestimated: since the time when the Yugoslav/Serbian army left Kosovo, the province has been under direct administration by the international community.3 Only a little time later the same phenomenon of international administration came into being in East-Timor, a Portuguese colony until 1975 and claimed by Indonesia afterwards.4

Part II Negotiating Constitutionalism, Ch.6 Law, Politics, and Constitutional Hegemony: the Supreme Court, jurisprudence, and demosprudence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baxi Upendra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
Politics And Law ◽  
Constitutional Pluralism

This chapter examines constitutional hegemony in relation to three forms of prudence: legisprudence, jurisprudence, and demosprudence. It considers how constitutional pluralism has influenced the making and working of the Indian Constitution, especially through the dynamics of the Supreme Court of India. In particular, it explores the notion of adjudicatory leadership and the concept of demosprudence in the context of the Indian Supreme Court, along with the changing relation between demosprudence and jurisprudence. The article first looks at the demosprudence of the Supreme Court of India, before discussing the concepts of organisational adjudicatory leadership, hermeneutic adjudicatory leadership, Social Action Litigation, and socially responsible criticism. It also analyses the politics and law of constitutional amendments.

Constitutional crisis is accelerating in Venezuela

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Measures

Significance The Supreme Court (TSJ) has nullified a sweeping amnesty law passed by the National Assembly, and Maduro is assessing constitutional amendments to dissolve the Assembly in 60 days and void recently approved legislative measures. Among other counter-initiatives, the opposition Democratic Unity Movement (MUD) has passed a law changing the composition of the Supreme Court and the requirements for convening a recall referendum. Impacts Further constitutional machinations are inevitable as the PSUV and MUD seek to outmanoeuvre each other. Political violence is likely as both sides mobilise supporters (including rallies this weekend) in a context of lawlessness and impunity. The UNASUR-backed TRC will not defuse political tensions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document