University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond最新文献_第2页

Dizzying Gillespie: The Exaggerated Death of the Balancing Approach and the Inescapable Allure of Flexibility in Appellate Jurisdiction 令人眼花缭乱的吉莱斯皮:平衡方法的夸张死亡和上诉管辖权灵活性的不可避免的诱惑

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2016-03-07 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2743942

Bryan D. Lammon

{"title":"Dizzying Gillespie: The Exaggerated Death of the Balancing Approach and the Inescapable Allure of Flexibility in Appellate Jurisdiction","authors":"Bryan D. Lammon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2743942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2743942","url":null,"abstract":"In Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court appeared to endorse a balancing approach to federal appellate jurisdiction, whereby courts could weigh the costs and benefits of an interlocutory appeal in any case. But the Court soon disavowed the balancing approach and today eschews case-by-case determinations of appellate jurisdiction. The common perception, then, is that Gillespie and the balancing approach are dead. But the balancing approach persists in the Courts of Appeals. In a variety of contexts, these courts have relied on the balancing approach to hear appeals. They’ve constructed doctrines based on the balancing approach. And they engage in case-by-case balancing in determining their jurisdiction. Contrary to popular belief, the balancing approach is alive and well in the Courts of Appeals.The balancing approach’s persistence — seemingly in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate — suggests that appellate judges cannot resist wielding some discretion when defining their jurisdiction. This allure of discretion poses a challenge to the primary goal of the literature on interlocutory appeals: reform. If reform is to happen, it will likely take the form of categorical rules. But if what the balancing approach’s persistence suggests is true — if appellate judges cannot completely forego using discretion in defining their jurisdiction — that threatens to undermine the certainty, predictability, and ease of application of any rules that reform might develop. I thus propose a largely novel approach to interlocutory appeal reform: a combination of categorical rules and a discretionary catchall.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"62 1","pages":"371-418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86020700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

In Memoriam: J. Rodney Johnson (1939-2015) 纪念:j·罗德尼·约翰逊(1939-2015)

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/n2u4e

W. Bryson

引用次数: 0

Binding the Enforcers: The Administrative Law Struggle Behind Pres. Obama's Immigration Actions 约束执法者:奥巴马总统移民行动背后的行政法斗争

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2650558

Michael Kagan

{"title":"Binding the Enforcers: The Administrative Law Struggle Behind Pres. Obama's Immigration Actions","authors":"Michael Kagan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2650558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2650558","url":null,"abstract":"President Obama’s ambitious use of executive discretion in immigration – especially the DACA and DAPA programs – should be understood in context of a struggle within the executive branch between the President and frontline enforcement officers in the Department of Homeland Security who have actively resisted his policy agenda. The so far successful litigation by 26 states to partially halt these programs has focused on this struggle within the executive branch, rather than on the stalemate between the President and Congress over legislative immigration reform. In preliminary rulings, the federal district court and the Court of Appeals have interpreted ambiguous provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to require a cumbersome notice and comment process in order for the President and the heads of immigration enforcement agencies to provide binding instructions to frontline enforcement officers about how to exercise discretion in individual cases. This article argues that interpreting the APA in this manner is unnecessary and thwarts the ability of elected leaders to direct the operations of government, and thus insulates law enforcement from change through the democratic process. Prosecutorial discretion requires judgment calls, and these decisions should be made as much as possible in a manner that renders them accountable to voters. To illustrate the need for elected officials to be able to direct their subordinates, this article draws analogies to conservative critiques of public sector unions, and to First Amendment case law involving public employees.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"26 1","pages":"665-736"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83508787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Glimpses of Marshall in the Military 马歇尔在军队中的一瞥

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/paqhb

Kevin C. Walsh

引用次数: 0

Sexualization, Sex Discrimination, and Public School Dress Codes 性别化、性别歧视和公立学校着装规范

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/qxca6

M. Harbach

引用次数: 11

Equity and Feasibility Regulation 股权及可行性规例

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2015-08-18 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2646738

Dov A. Waisman

{"title":"Equity and Feasibility Regulation","authors":"Dov A. Waisman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2646738","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2646738","url":null,"abstract":"What guiding principles should federal agencies follow in regulating the serious health risks posed by industrial activity? Since the Reagan administration, there has been a strong regulatory trend in favor of cost-benefit analysis, which requires investment in risk reduction only so long as the health benefits (in terms of deaths and injuries avoided) exceed the costs. Feasibility analysis, which requires risks to be reduced to the maximum extent possible without bankrupting the regulated industries, has become the principal alternative to cost-benefit analysis. But it has suffered pointed criticism, principally on the grounds that it lacks a sound normative basis. This Article offers a novel normative defense of feasibility analysis. The Article argues that the true normative basis of feasibility-based regulation is the norm of equity, which is concerned with equalizing the burdens differently-situated individuals must bear as the result of some socially desirable activity or practice. With this normative foundation in place, the Article explains why feasibility-based regulation makes sense in the common scenario in which the cost of reducing an industry’s serious health risks is spread among a vast number of consumers or shareholders.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"50 1","pages":"1263-1331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89347729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Temporal Arbitrariness: A Back to the Future Look at a Twenty-Five-Year-Old Death Penalty Trial 时间任意性:回顾25年前的死刑审判的未来

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2015-03-12 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2577370

M. Tate

引用次数: 0

The Politics of Botched Executions 拙劣处决的政治

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2015-01-31 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/hv6nx

C. Lain

{"title":"The Politics of Botched Executions","authors":"C. Lain","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/hv6nx","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/hv6nx","url":null,"abstract":"For decades now, America’s death penalty has been beset by serious problems in its administration, but what has finally gotten the public’s attention is a spate of botched executions in the first half of 2014. Botched executions are, like the death penalty’s other woes, nothing new. But having to manage the public relations nightmare that has followed these high-profile events is new, and tells a story of its own. What are the politics of botched executions? Officials have lowered the blinds so witnesses could not see what was happening inside the execution chamber, called for an “independent review” by other arms of the state, minimized concerns by comparing the execution to the condemned’s crimes, even denied that a botched execution was botched in the first place. In this symposium contribution, I recount the four botched executions of 2014 and state responses that accompanied them. I then make three observations — one about states’ fealty to the death penalty, one about backlash politics, and one about the changing cultural construct of lethal injection in the United States. Finally, I surmise how state responses to botched executions (or the lack thereof) might impact the constitutionality of lethal injection and prove true the old adage about politics making strange bedfellows: the inept executioner may prove to be the abolitionist’s best friend.","PeriodicalId":83423,"journal":{"name":"University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond","volume":"128 1","pages":"825-843"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83414329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Dedication to Dean Timothy L. Coggins: "A Goodbye, and Thank You, to Tim Coggins" 致院长蒂莫西·l·柯金斯:“向蒂姆·柯金斯告别，并感谢你”

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/rtkm8

W. Williams

引用次数: 0

The McDonnell Case: A Clarification of Corruption Law or a Confusing Application of Corruption Law 麦克唐纳案:腐败法的厘清或腐败法适用的混淆

University of Richmond law review. University of Richmond Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/3tuks

Chambers, L. Henry

引用次数: 0