Legal Constraint in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael K. Hinkle
Keyword(s):  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Legal Constraint ◽  
The U.S

Epilogue

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric K. Yamamoto
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Judicial Scrutiny ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Assistance Project

The concise Epilogue describes the U.S. Supreme Court’s late-2017 vacation of the courts of appeals rulings in the International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump cases (determining that the litigated controversy over the president’s January and March 2017 exclusionary executive orders was moot). It incorporates Justice Sotomayor’s dissent and notes that the lower court rulings “may be persuasive and cited as guidance, but not as binding precedent.” It observes therefore that the Korematsu conundrum persists at the heart of these and future liberty and security controversies: careful judicial scrutiny or near unconditional deference, judicial independence or court passivity.

Collegial Courts: Panel Decision-Making and the U.S. Courts of Appeals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela C. Corley ◽  
Wendy L. Martinek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
Almost All ◽  
The U.S

The three-judge panel mechanism by which the courts of appeals process almost all (though not quite all) of their cases affords scholars unique opportunities to explore how appellate court decision-making may transcend being merely the sum of its parts. Specifically, court of appeals judges pursue their decision-making responsibilities as part of a collegial group, and thus it is important to understand how being a member of a multimember court influences their behavior.

Hierarchical and Collegial Politics on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

2011 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Kastellec
Keyword(s):  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
The U.S

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document