Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Dennis, Jeanne M." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: The Constitutional-Doubt Canon (Part 3 of 3) [March 29, 2022]
From the Document: "The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Legal Sidebar LSB10719, 'The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (Part 9)') is a set of rules the Supreme Court has developed to guide federal courts in disposing of cases that raise constitutional questions in order to minimize tensions that arise when an unelected federal judiciary sets aside laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures. Under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, federal courts should interpret the Constitution only when it is a 'strict necessity' [hyperlink]. In a concurring opinion in 'Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority' [hyperlink], Justice Louis Brandeis identified seven rules comprising the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: (1) the Rule Against Feigned or Collusive Lawsuits; (2) Ripeness; (3) Judicial Minimalism; (4) the Last Resort Rule; (5) Standing and Mootness; (6) Constitutional Estoppel; and (7) the Constitutional-Doubt Canon. Rules (1), (2), (5), and (6) inform whether a court can hear a case (i.e., whether it is justiciable), while Rules (3), (4), and (7) inform how a court should address constitutional questions in cases before it. This Legal Sidebar Post on the Constitutional-Doubt Canon is the third of three that look at this latter set of rules. Because the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine informs how the Court is likely to resolve disputes involving the constitutionality of laws, understanding the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine may assist Congress in its legislative activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Dennis, Jeanne M.
2022-03-29
-
Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: Judicial Minimalism (Part 1 of 3) [March 29, 2022]
From the Document: "The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Legal Sidebar LSB10719, 'The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (Part 9)') is a set of rules the Supreme Court has developed to guide federal courts in disposing of cases that raise constitutional questions in order to minimize tensions that arise when an unelected federal judiciary sets aside laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures. Under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, federal courts should interpret the Constitution only when it is a 'strict necessity' [hyperlink]. In a concurring opinion in 'Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority' [hyperlink], Justice Louis Brandeis identified seven rules comprising the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: (1) the Rule Against Feigned or Collusive Lawsuits; (2) Ripeness; (3) Judicial Minimalism; (4) the Last Resort Rule; (5) Standing and Mootness; (6) Constitutional Estoppel; and (7) the Constitutional-Doubt Canon. Rules (1), (2), (5), and (6) inform whether a court can hear a case (i.e., whether it is justiciable), while Rules (3), (4), and (7) inform how a court should address constitutional questions in cases before it. This Legal Sidebar Post on Judicial Minimalism is the first of three that look at this latter set of rules. Because the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine informs how the Court is likely to resolve disputes involving the constitutionality of laws, understanding the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine may assist Congress in its legislative activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Dennis, Jeanne M.
2022-03-29
-
Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: The Last Resort Rule (Part 2 of 3) [March 29, 2022]
From the Document: "The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Legal Sidebar LSB10719, 'The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (Part 9)') is a set of rules the Supreme Court has developed to guide federal courts in disposing of cases that raise constitutional questions in order to minimize tensions that arise when an unelected federal judiciary sets aside laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures. Under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, federal courts should interpret the Constitution only when it is a 'strict necessity' [hyperlink]. In a concurring opinion in 'Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority' [hyperlink], Justice Louis Brandeis identified seven rules comprising the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine: (1) the Rule Against Feigned or Collusive Lawsuits; (2) Ripeness; (3) Judicial Minimalism; (4) the Last Resort Rule; (5) Standing and Mootness; (6) Constitutional Estoppel; and (7) the Constitutional-Doubt Canon. Rules (1), (2), (5), and (6) inform whether a court can hear a case (i.e., whether it is justiciable), while Rules (3), (4), and (7) inform how a court should address constitutional questions in cases before it. This Legal Sidebar Post on the Last Resort Rule is the second of three that look at this latter set of rules. Because the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine informs how the Court is likely to resolve disputes involving the constitutionality of laws, understanding the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine may assist Congress in its legislative activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Dennis, Jeanne M.
2022-03-29
-
Modes of Constitutional Analysis: The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine (Part 9) [March 29, 2022]
From the Document: "This Legal Sidebar Post is the last in a nine-part series [hyperlink] that discusses certain 'methods' or 'modes' of analysis that the Supreme Court has used to interpret provisions of the Constitution. This ninth essay provides an overview of the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, which is a set of rules the Supreme Court has developed to guide federal court dispositions of cases that raise constitutional questions. Because the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine informs how the Court is likely to resolve disputes involving the constitutionality of laws, understanding the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine may assist Congress in its legislative activities. [...] The fundamental principle of the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine is that federal courts should interpret the Constitution only when it is a 'strict necessity [hyperlink].' The reason for this is threefold: first, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, its interpretation has broad implications; second, an unelected Supreme Court exercising judicial review to countermand actions by an elected Congress or state legislatures is in tension with principles of democracy and majority-rule; and third, because the Supreme Court's authority depends, as a practical matter, on the Executive Branch enforcing and the people accepting its rulings, the Court must be careful not to squander public goodwill by issuing ill-considered opinions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Dennis, Jeanne M.
2022-03-29
1
