The Supreme Court’s “non-transsubstantive” Class Action
نویسنده
چکیده
I. THE ROBERTS COURT’S COMPETING CLASS ACTION CASES ... 1628 II. THE COURT’S “NON-TRANSSUBSTANTIVE” CLASS ACTION DECISIONS ............................................................................. 1636 A. The Court’s “Non-Transsubstantive” Rule 23 Jurisprudence .............. 1637 1. Substantive Lawmaking .................................................... 1637 2. Composite Judgments: Substantive Policy and Procedural Consequences ................................................................... 1644 B. The Court’s “Non-Transsubstantive” Class Arbitration Jurisprudence ............................................................................. 1650 III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE COURT’S “NON-TRANSSUBSTANTIVE” CLASS ACTION JURISPRUDENCE FOR JUDICIAL LAWMAKING POWER AND THE JUDICIAL ROLE ............................................ 1654 A. Implications for Judicial Lawmaking Power ................................... 1654 B. Transparency, the Judicial Role, and Judicial Legitimacy ................. 1662 IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 1667
منابع مشابه
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Questions of Religious Practice and Belief
Part I of this Article discusses Supreme Court cases prior to 1981, in which the Court first expressed its hands-off approach to deciding questions of religious practice and belief. This Part suggests that in these decisions, as a result of a proper concern for religious autonomy, the Court already began the process of expanding the principle of judicial non-interference, at the cost of sacrifi...
متن کاملDucking Trouble: Congressionally Induced Selection Bias in the Supreme Court's Agenda
Existing studies of congressional influence on Supreme Court decision making have largely failed to recognize the fact that the Court has a discretionary docket. We model the effects of congressional preferences on the certiorari decision and find strong evidence that the Court’s constitutional agenda is systematically influenced by Congress. The Court’s docket is significantly less likely to c...
متن کاملPolicy Forum: Confusion Worse Confounded—The Supreme Court’s GAAR Decisions
This article analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Canada Trustco v. The Queen and Mathew v. The Queen, the first cases heard by the court involving the application of the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR). The article begins with a review of the case law, followed by an examination of the Supreme Court’s statements with respect to statutory interpretation in general. The heart o...
متن کاملThe Cost of Privacy: Riley v. California's Impact on Cell Phone Searches
Riley v. California is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the searches of cell phones by law enforcement. The 2014 unanimous decision requires a warrant for all cell phone searches incident to arrest absent an emergency. This work summarizes the legal precedent and analyzes the limitations and practical implications of the ruling. General guidelines for members of the c...
متن کاملPeremptory Challenges: Lessons from Hernandez v. Texas
INTRODUCTION What insights can a close study of Hernandez v. Texas contribute to current debates about the use of peremptory challenges to strike non-whites from venires? In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Thomas Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and Hernandez v. New York, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (1991), analysis of the defense’s and prosecutor’s lines of reasoning in Hernandez v....
متن کامل