Rethinking the Order of Battle in Constitutional Torts: A Reply to John Jeffries
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
September 15, 2010
Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming
U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-25
This brief Reply to John Jeffries’ recent article in the Supreme Court Review develops two major themes. First, I invoke institutional, precedential, and doctrinal factors to argue that the merits-first approach in qualified immunity adjudication impels judges to define constitutional rights narrowly. Second, I consider the larger normative question of where constitutional rights should be articulated. Jeffries views alternative remedial contexts as coequal for law articulation purposes. My view, in contrast, is that the context in which law is articulated is will inherently shape the substance of the law that results, and so we should examine the unique characteristics of a particular context in deciding whether it is desirable for law to be clarified there.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 15
Keywords: Constitutional Torts, Qualified Immunity, Rights, RemediesAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: September 15, 2010 ; Last revised: March 21, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.235 seconds