A Jurisprudential Divide in U.S. v. Wong & U.S. v. June

16:1 Engage 54 (published June 9, 2015)

2 Pages Posted: 4 Aug 2015

See all articles by Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Richard J. Peltz-Steele

University of Massachusetts School of Law at Dartmouth

Date Written: February 1, 2015

Abstract

In spring 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases construing the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S. v. Kwai Fun Wong and U.S. v June, Conservator. The Court majority, 5-4, per Justice Kagan, ruled in favor of the claimants and against the Government in both cases. On the face of the majority opinions, Wong and June come off as straightforward matters of statutory construction. But under the surface, the cases gave the Court a chance to wrestle with fundamental questions of statutory interpretation. The divide in Wong and June concerns the role of the courts vis-à-vis Congress — one side on the Court more willing to wield judicial prerogative and challenge Congress to keep pace; the other side on the Court more determined to cast itself as mere umpire, calling balls and strikes.

Keywords: federal, law, United States, federalism, Supreme Court, tort, Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, equity, statute of limitations, equity, tolling, statutory interpretation, congressional intent, stare decisis, civil rights, litigation, remedies, sovereign immunity, immigration, INS, jurisdiction

JEL Classification: D74, D78, D79, H59, I00, J71, K13, K19, K41, K49

Suggested Citation

Peltz-Steele, Richard J., A Jurisprudential Divide in U.S. v. Wong & U.S. v. June (February 1, 2015). 16:1 Engage 54 (published June 9, 2015), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2639265

Richard J. Peltz-Steele (Contact Author)

University of Massachusetts School of Law at Dartmouth ( email )

333 Faunce Corner Road
North Dartmouth, MA 02747-1252
United States
15089851102 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
54
Abstract Views
620
rank
412,789
PlumX Metrics