: In 2021, prices in the United States and across the globe rose rapidly, reintroducing a concern that had lain mostly dormant in U.S. politics... The post The Federal Reserve’s Forgotten Credit Mandate appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: Article III protects federal judges with life tenure and salary guarantees. But politics still impacts federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. The post Interim Orders, the Presidency, and Judicial Supremacy appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: The Federal Constitution has much to say about the relationship between the federal government and the states, but it is silent as to the... The post Home Rule Reinforcement: Constitutional Local Autonomy Guarantees appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not issue “universal injunctions” unless “necessary to provide complete relief to... The post CASA’s Complete Relief Paradox appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: The hate crime enhancement in the federal sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(a), increases a defendant’s offense level by three if they “intentionally selected any victim . . . because... The post United States v. Patterson appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: We searched for all federal cases filed in or removed to the Southern District of Mississippi between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2022.... The post Appendix to Civil Rights Deserts appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: Abstract Throughout the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth, remedies for federal government misconduct were often predicated on rights to sue conferred by... The post Federal Tort Liability After Egbert v. Boule: The Case for Restoring the Officer Suit at Common Law appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: Federal civil rights have been in general retreat for roughly a half-century. Seeing the beginnings of this trend in the mid-1970s following the end... The post Enforcing State Constitutions Through Constitutional Torts appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: State constitutions serve as important sources of individual rights. They often extend broader protections than the Federal Constitution and have, in some instances, included... The post Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, Inc. v. Secretary, Florida Department of State appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: Baseball isn’t unique only for being “America’s pastime.” It is also unique because activities involving the “business . . . of base[ball]” are exempt from federal antitrust laws... The post Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Béisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc. appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: It has become increasingly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to vindicate their rights in federal court. Barriers to successful lawsuits are plentiful. Qualified immunity... The post Without Remedies: The Effect of Cummings and the Contract Law Analogy on Antidiscrimination Spending Clause Plaintiffs appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: U.S. states traditionally play a minor role in establishing national security policies, which generally fall within the federal government’s remit. But the return of great power competition with China and Russia and the accompanying proliferation of threats have spurred states to act on national security concerns. The post Federalism and the New National Security appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: By standard accounts, there are fifty-four constitutions across the federal, state, and territorial governments of the United States. But in fact, there are 230 other governmental constitutions that currently govern peoples and territories within the United States. These constitutions not only flow from a sovereignty that existed prior to the United States but also came out of a legal movement that asserted its independence from both the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. This Article tells the story of these constitutions — the constitutions of Native nations. The post Indigenous Constitutionalism appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review
: Prison law is characterized by judicial deference to penal administrators. Despite the well-documented horrors that occur behind prison walls, federal and state courts often decline to intervene, asserting, among other things, that prisoners’ rights are limited and that the judicial branch lacks the power and expertise to get involved in the inner workings of detention facilities. Moreover, jurists often assume that the nation’s first courts largely stayed out of prisons and jails, and contemporary judicial deference is therefore historically rooted. The post The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years appearedfirst on Harvard Law Review