The abstention doctrines that developed in the 1940s and 50s, as scholars have noted, reflected certain strands of Progressive and New Deal Legal thought, particularly an emphasis on institutional competencies and judicial restraint. This emphasis in turn was tied to the substantive policy goal of reducing federal court invalidation of progressive legislation. This article, written for New York Law School’s symposium celebrating Martin Luther King, aims to make a modest addition to prior scholarship by showing ways in which the reasoning supporting abstention doctrine corresponded to reasoning with respect to substantive doctrine. This correspondence was not only at the general level of emphasizing institutional competencies and judicial restraint, but also at the more specific level of relying on a social-fact-based jurisprudence, imagining any-state-of-facts that might justify legislation, and balancing governmental interests against formerly more absolute individual rights. Reinforced by such reasoning, abstention doctrine at mid-century appeared to be heading in the direction of requiring exceptional circumstances not to abstain when plaintiffs contested state and local regulation. Justice Douglas, later joined by Justice Brennan and Chief Justice Warren, would play a critical role in resisting abstention, thus helping to usher in the modern civil rights era. Because abstention subsists and continues to evoke academic criticism, it may be easy to forget how pervasive a doctrine abstention once threatened to become.
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
The United States has granted reparations for a variety of historical injustices, from imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
In an era defined by partisan rifts and government gridlock, many celebrate the rare issues that prompt bipartisan consensus. But extreme consensus...
Working hand-in-hand with the private sector, largely in a regulatory vacuum, policing agencies at the federal, state, and local level are acquiring...
The decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard [SFFA], invalidating the use of race in college admissions, reignites...
In Poland, Venezuela, Rwanda, and several other countries, governments have in the past years altered basic rules of their constitutional system to...
In Chile, many commentators, academics and political leaders have spent years arguing that the limited nature of the social rights in the national...
At first blush, the debate between Stanley Fish and Ronald Dworkin that took place over the course of the 1980s and early 90s seems to have produced...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a...