The U.S. Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence has reached a confusing junction. The Court recently declined to say whether the Supremacy Clause confers a cause of action for federal court litigants. As a result, lower courts and litigants are caught between conflicting doc-trines: one that suggests and one that denies that the Supremacy Clause confers causes of action. Neither line of cases definitively answers the question. A cause of action is necessary for a federal court plaintiff to bring suit. This Note explores whether potential plaintiffs should be able to rely on the Supremacy Clause when applicable federal law does not otherwise confer a cause of action. Navigating the history of the Supremacy Clause, the contours of due...
State and local governments across the United States increasingly act in areas that intersect with f...
States should have much broader authority to decline jurisdiction over federal claims. The normative...
“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interp...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence has reached a confusing junction. The Court ...
Today, it is widely accepted that the Constitution authorizes courts to review and invalidate state ...
This Note argues that political subdivisions should be able to seek protection from their parent sta...
With Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text, 1 Jonathan Mitchell has produced what I think is the mos...
There is no federalism clause in the Constitution, and the case law ranges over a number of differ...
With Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text, Jonathan Mitchell has produced what I think is the most ...
The Supremacy Clause includes treaties in the list of supreme laws which state judges are bound to u...
Perhaps because the predominant strands of contemporary Supremacy Clause jurisprudence originate in ...
The Supreme Court of the United States frequently makes claims of judicial supremacy. These are mome...
32 p. ; This student paper has been award the 2004-2005 Don G. McCormick Prize.At first glance, the ...
States have often taken different approaches to polarizing issues such as the legalization of mariju...
Did the Framers attempt to establish an effectual power in the national judiciary to void state law ...
State and local governments across the United States increasingly act in areas that intersect with f...
States should have much broader authority to decline jurisdiction over federal claims. The normative...
“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interp...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence has reached a confusing junction. The Court ...
Today, it is widely accepted that the Constitution authorizes courts to review and invalidate state ...
This Note argues that political subdivisions should be able to seek protection from their parent sta...
With Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text, 1 Jonathan Mitchell has produced what I think is the mos...
There is no federalism clause in the Constitution, and the case law ranges over a number of differ...
With Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text, Jonathan Mitchell has produced what I think is the most ...
The Supremacy Clause includes treaties in the list of supreme laws which state judges are bound to u...
Perhaps because the predominant strands of contemporary Supremacy Clause jurisprudence originate in ...
The Supreme Court of the United States frequently makes claims of judicial supremacy. These are mome...
32 p. ; This student paper has been award the 2004-2005 Don G. McCormick Prize.At first glance, the ...
States have often taken different approaches to polarizing issues such as the legalization of mariju...
Did the Framers attempt to establish an effectual power in the national judiciary to void state law ...
State and local governments across the United States increasingly act in areas that intersect with f...
States should have much broader authority to decline jurisdiction over federal claims. The normative...
“Judicial supremacy” is the idea that the Supreme Court should be viewed as the authoritative interp...