Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2380681
 


 



Polymorphous Public Law Litigation: The Forgotten History of Nineteenth Century Public Law Litigation


David L. Sloss


Santa Clara University - School of Law

January 17, 2014

71 Washington and Lee Law Review, (Nov 2014, Forthcoming)
Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 01-14

Abstract:     
Recent debates about popular constitutionalism and judicial supremacy have focused on the question of who interprets the Constitution. This article reframes the debate by asking what legal sources courts apply to protect individual rights from government infringement. Throughout the nineteenth century, federal courts applied a mix of international law, statutes and common law to protect fundamental rights and restrain government action. This article uncovers the forgotten history of nineteenth century public law litigation.

Professors Post and Siegel have advocated “policentric constitutional interpretation,” wherein the Supreme Court shares authority for constitutional interpretation with other actors. By analogy, this article introduces the concept of “polymorphous public law litigation.” Under the polymorphous model, instead of fixating on constitutional law as the dominant public law discourse, courts apply international law, statutes, and common law — and occasionally constitutional law — to decide public law controversies. The article demonstrates that nineteenth century federal courts applied a polymorphous model of public law litigation.

During the twentieth century, the polymorphous model was supplanted by a constitutionalized model of public law litigation, wherein courts rely primarily on constitutional law to decide public law cases. The process of constitutionalization exacerbated the tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty. When the Supreme Court applies constitutional law to decide a case, the Court does not merely decide the case; it also creates or modifies a legal rule that is not subject to revision by legislative majorities. In contrast, when the Court applies other types of law, Congress or state legislatures retain the power to modify the controlling legal rule. Hence, revival of a polymorphous model would help mitigate the tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 74

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: January 18, 2014 ; Last revised: July 1, 2014

Suggested Citation

Sloss, David L., Polymorphous Public Law Litigation: The Forgotten History of Nineteenth Century Public Law Litigation (January 17, 2014). 71 Washington and Lee Law Review, (Nov 2014, Forthcoming); Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 01-14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2380681 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2380681

Contact Information

David L. Sloss (Contact Author)
Santa Clara University - School of Law ( email )
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 411
Downloads: 91
Download Rank: 173,506

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds