FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W203294992> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W203294992 abstract "This paper examines the status of debates concerning the constitutionality of private suits to enforce civil fines in light of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens and Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, as well as a pending Fifth Circuit decision in United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital. The two Supreme Court opinions have upheld qui tam and citizen suits against standing challenges, but have reserved the question of their constitutionality under Article II. The Riley panel opinion held qui tam actions to be unconstitutional under Article II, but the Fifth Circuit took the matter en banc on its own motion on the very day the opinion was published. In the author's judgment, all such private suits to enforce civil fines are plainly constitutional under both Article II and Article III. That such suits appear to raise constitutional doubts is the consequence of missteps in the Supreme Court's implementation of separation of powers principles. The Court, led chiefly in this respect by Justice Scalia, has written often as if constitutionally vested executive authority guarantees the President plenary policy control over all federal civil administration, and as if the purpose of standing doctrine were largely to protect such executive authority from judicial interference. The author believes that the vesting of executive power is better understood as an effort to remove Congress from the business of administration. Standing rules, for their part, ought chiefly to be understood as protecting the judiciary from the dilution of judicial power that would come from the resolution of abstract or collusive litigation. The author explains why the Court should go back to requiring no more as a matter of standing doctrine than that a case be presented in an adversary context and in a manner historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution. The Court's injury, causality, and redressability inquiries should be abandoned in favor of a more straightforward questioning whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits have constitutional or statutory causes of action to support their complaints. In Article II cases, the Court should adhere to the analytic framework of Morrison v. Olson, and abandon the more wooden and categorical approach to interpreting executive power that informs Justice Scalia's Morrison dissent and his alternative holding in Printz v. United States." @default.
• W203294992 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W203294992 creator A5037608839 @default.
• W203294992 date "2000-11-27" @default.
• W203294992 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W203294992 title "Returning Separation-of-Powers Analysis to its Normative Roots: The Constitutionality of Qui Tam Actions and Other Private Suits to Enforce Civil Fines" @default.
• W203294992 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W203294992 type Work @default.
• W203294992 sameAs 203294992 @default.
• W203294992 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W203294992 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W203294992 hasAuthorship W203294992A5037608839 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C126053111 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C2779563796 @default.
• W203294992 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C126053111 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C144024400 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C17744445 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C199539241 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C2776154427 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C2776211767 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C2776512386 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C2778272461 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C2779563796 @default.
• W203294992 hasConceptScore W203294992C48764862 @default.
• W203294992 hasLocation W2032949921 @default.
• W203294992 hasOpenAccess W203294992 @default.
• W203294992 hasPrimaryLocation W2032949921 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W113036621 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W143826495 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1481940518 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1515019059 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1523816863 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1525770003 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1556785688 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W160288129 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W2273493083 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W2553052305 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W2914766513 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W305095276 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3122746049 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3122776476 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3122971878 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3124841333 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3125042458 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3125089705 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W3135146558 @default.
• W203294992 hasRelatedWork W1963748105 @default.
• W203294992 isParatext "false" @default.
• W203294992 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W203294992 magId "203294992" @default.
• W203294992 workType "article" @default.