FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W52282308> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W52282308 startingPage "1355" @default.
• W52282308 abstract "An anomaly has developed in the lower federal courts over the last twenty years that threatens to emaciate a cornerstone doctrine in the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence. Specifically, there is an to the Court's so-called Younger abstention doctrine1 that the lower federal courts have created for cases involving claims of federal preemption. However, this cannot stand in its current incarnation because it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holdings on abstention. Ultimately, the Supreme Court can resolve this issue by either (1) eliminating twenty years of development in the lower courts; or (2) allowing the to expand and nearly swallow the entire Younger abstention doctrine. One common Younger abstention fact pattern unfolds as follows: arrested under a state law, the defendant argues to the state judge that the charges against her must be thrown out because they violate the Federal Constitution. When the state judge rejects her contentions she turns to a U.S. District Court hoping that it will end the prosecution with a writ of habeas corpus. The district court finds that all of the requirements of habeas relief are met, as are all statutory and constitutional requirements. But, if the state law violates the First Amendment or most other constitutional protections, the district court must tell the defendant that the Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from interfering until she has already been convicted because the pain and costs of an unconstitutional criminal trial do not qualify as irreparable harm. However, due to a unique development in the lower federal courts, if her claim is that the state law violates the Supremacy Clause, the outcome will be strikingly different. The federal court may step in and invalidate the prosecution. This seemingly illogical outcome, where some constitutional provisions are guarded more closely than others, is the result of a quirk that has developed in the lower federal courts over the past twenty years-the exception to the Younger abstention doctrine. The implications of this development are far reaching, and, ultimately, in order to fit in with the Supreme Court's Younger holdings, the preemption must either emaciate the Younger abstention doctrine, or the itself must be eliminated. From its beginnings, the Younger abstention doctrine, developed by the Court in Younger v. Harris2 and its progeny, has been highly controversial. Critics have objected to the concept of Our Federalism,3 whereby a federal court presented with a case where Congress has granted jurisdiction and where the case meets all Article III case or controversy requirements must nonetheless refuse to consider the merits of the case because the Supreme Court has found that a national policy of comity between the federal government and the states demands abstention.4 However, the Younger abstention doctrine has nonetheless evolved into a major force on the legal landscape. Many forests have been leveled printing articles in opposition to and in support of Younger abstention,5 and this Comment does not attempt to canvass those debates. Instead, it focuses on a single to Younger, which I call the preemption due to its reliance on a claim that federal law preempts state law under the Supremacy Clause, and which has quietly developed over the past twenty years under the guise of traditional Younger analysis. This has spread throughout the federal courts despite going largely unnoticed by the Supreme Court. However, when subjected to scrutiny under the policies and writings of the Supreme Court, the reasoning behind this is exposed as fatally flawed. Part I of this Comment maps the development of the preemption exception, examining the other exceptions to Younger and comparing the lower courts' justifications for a preemption with the holdings of the Supreme Court. …" @default.
• W52282308 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W52282308 creator A5017260490 @default.
• W52282308 date "2005-04-01" @default.
• W52282308 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W52282308 title "Abstention Preemption: How the Federal Courts Have Opened the Door to the Eradication of Our Federalism" @default.
• W52282308 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W52282308 type Work @default.
• W52282308 sameAs 52282308 @default.
• W52282308 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W52282308 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W52282308 hasAuthorship W52282308A5017260490 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2776210200 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2776449231 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2777488897 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C3020037990 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C38671928 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C71043370 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W52282308 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C17319257 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C17744445 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C199539241 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2776154427 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2776210200 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2776211767 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2776449231 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2777488897 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C2778272461 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C3020037990 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C38671928 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C533735693 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C66487177 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C71043370 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C87501996 @default.
• W52282308 hasConceptScore W52282308C94625758 @default.
• W52282308 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W52282308 hasLocation W522823081 @default.
• W52282308 hasOpenAccess W52282308 @default.
• W52282308 hasPrimaryLocation W522823081 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W114323662 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W1582477418 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2032925145 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W225994669 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2267131473 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W236660561 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2473974343 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W280485655 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2961138080 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W297080199 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2980747223 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2993256919 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W301539970 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W3123112816 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W3123320704 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W3124070146 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W3146650419 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W332618262 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W212136577 @default.
• W52282308 hasRelatedWork W2271675279 @default.
• W52282308 hasVolume "99" @default.
• W52282308 isParatext "false" @default.
• W52282308 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W52282308 magId "52282308" @default.
• W52282308 workType "article" @default.