Search

The article discusses the issue of rights in U.S. Supreme Court cases during its 2017 term, including in the U.S. Supreme Court case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." The impact that constitutional law has on the Supreme Court's framework in determining case judgments is discussed.

The article discusses the challenges to democratic integrity arising from U.S. Supreme Court judgments on voting rights and campaign financing. It mentions government actions to interfere in these actions, the lack of protection of political participation in constitutional law, and suggests possible approaches for achieving more consistent decisions.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. which deals with a legal standing doctrine in America and the nation's civil procedure rules. According to the article, constitutional standing requirements in America derive from a limitation of the judicial power to resolve cases and controversies under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A "legal interest" standing test is also examined.