Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Tag: Justiciability

  • I-CONnect Symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries” — Constitutional Theory and Boundary Problems: Some Reflections

    [Editor’s Note: This is the first entry in our symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries.” The introduction to the symposium is available here.] –Lael K Weis, Senior Lecturer, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School The invitation to participate in the Constitutional Boundaries Workshop provided me with an important opportunity to reflect on the development and trajectory of my early career as a constitutional theorist, and the ways that constitutional law’s ‘boundaries’ have figured in defining my research interests. 

  • Hellerstedt and Standing: A Comparative View

    —Stefanus Hendrianto, University of Notre Dame The issue of standing appears to be relatively marginal in comparative constitutional law, because comparative constitutional scholars tend to see standing as a technical issue. For instance, in analyzing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt,[1]  many legal analysts have missed an important aspect of the case; the question of standing, which became one of the central arguments in Justice Thomas’s dissent. 

  • Clapper v. Amnesty International: Still Trying for a Day in Court

    —Sudha Setty, Western New England University School of Law In the last decade, U.S. courts have consistently blocked civil suits seeking damages for government overreaching in its counterterrorism programs.  Most cases have been dismissed at the pleadings stage, as courts have found plaintiffs to be without standing and/or have found that plaintiffs who have standing have no real way of bolstering their case because of lack of discoverable materials. 

  • Article Review & Response: Mark Tushnet and Oliver Gerstenberg on Rights Adjudication

    [Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Article Review Series, Mark Tushnet reviews Oliver Gerstenberg’s just-published I-CON article on “Negative/Positive Constitutionalism, ‘Fair Balance,” and the Problem of Justiciability.” Professor Gerstenberg then responds to Professor Tushnet’s review.]   A Review of Gerstenberg’s article on “Negative/Positive Constitutionalism, ‘Fair Balance,” and the Problem of Justiciability” —Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Oliver Gerstenberg develops an argument that experimentalist modes of adjudication can coexist with “strong” rights.