Federal courts are often asked to issue various forms of expedited relief, including stays pending appeal. This Article explores a little examined device that federal courts employ to freeze legal proceedings until they are able to rule on a party’s request for a stay pending appeal: the “administrative” or “temporary” stay. A decision whether to impose an administrative stay can have significant effects in the real world, as illustrated by recent high-profile litigation on topics including immigration and abortion. Yet federal courts have not endorsed a uniform standard for determining whether an administrative stay is warranted or clarified the basis for their power to issue such a stay. This Article draws attention to the administrative stay device and proposes standards to guide federal courts in determining when such a stay is appropriate. In so doing, the Article probes the bounds of federal courts’ equitable authority and the interests underlying their decisions about whether to grant interim relief in response to claims of impending harm.
Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly...
Following the Supreme Court’s momentous decision last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, much of the scholarly discussion has focused on...
Nationwide injunctions keep the Trump administration from violating federal law during the time it would take the US Supreme Court to intervene.
Trump v. United States is so intensely criticized that, in some quarters, it is at risk of being included in the anti-canon. It is alleged to be...
Virtue jurisprudence is an approach to normative legal theory that answers normative questions about law from a perspective that is centred on the...
The Supreme Court’s evisceration of the federal constitutional right to abortion has raised the specter of criminal and civil liability for abortion...
Trump v. United States’s discovery of broad immunity has rendered the presidency more imperial and unaccountable. This Article tackles four questions...
Until he joined the U.S. government in 1934, Robert H. Jackson had been a lawyer in private practice in Upstate New York who was admitted to the bar...
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp.: International Arbitration and Constitutional Avoidance
I suspect that CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. caught the eye of the Supreme Court because of an interesting constitutional question...
The per se rule against specific enforcement of personal service contracts is well established under Anglo-American contract law. At the same time...
The United States is undergoing a legal realignment, in that salient legal views recently associated with the right are now being espoused by the left...
This essay considers the future of public-private collaboration in the wake of the Murthy v. Missouri litigation, which cast doubt on the...
U.S. states traditionally play a minor role in establishing national security policies, which generally fall within the federal government’s remit...
Suddenly, the term “civil war” is everywhere, from state and federal immigration battles to abortion access to environmental regulation to election...
Almost half of the states in the country have made it harder to get an abortion since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the federal right to get an...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...
History and precedent tell us that the just compensation requirement has been implemented by a complex network of remedies providing multiple avenues...
It has been a big moment for court reform. President Biden has proposed a slate of important if vaguely defined reforms, including a new ethics regime...