Government accountability in the nineteenth century -- Bivens and government accountability in the twentieth century -- Human rights and War on Terror litigation -- Evaluating the effectiveness of Bivens litigation -- Evaluating justifications for judicial silence -- Congressional ratification of the bivens action -- Applying Bivens to conduct outside of the United States -- Overcoming qualified immunity -- Common-law solutions to judge-made problems.

This book offers a new account of the power of federal courts in the United States to hear and determine uncontested applications to assert or register a claim of right. Familiar to lawyers in civil law countries as forms of voluntary or non-contentious jurisdiction, these uncontested applications fit uneasily with the commitment to adversary legalism in the United States. Indeed, modern accounts of federal judicial power often urge that the language of the Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of concrete disputes between adverse parties, thereby ruling out all forms of non-contentious jurisdiction. Said to rest on the so-called "case-or-controversy" requirement of Article III, this requirement of party contestation threatens the power of federal courts to conduct a range of familiar proceedings, such as the oversight of bankruptcy proceedings, the issuance of warrants, and the adjudication of applications for mandamus and habeas corpus relief. By recounting the tradition of naturalization and other uncontested litigation in antebellum America and coupling that tradition with an account of the important difference between cases and controversies, this book challenges the prevailing understanding of Article III. In addition to defending the power of federal courts to hear uncontested matters of federal law, the book examines the way the Constitution's meaning has changed over time and suggests a constructive interpretive methodology that would allow the Supreme Court to take account of the old and the new in defining the contours of federal judicial power.

To view or download the 2018 Supplement to this book, click here. This casebook emphasizes important circuit court decisions together with relevant Supreme Court case law. This enables students to see how principles articulated in Supreme Court decisions are implemented by lower courts. Constitutional Torts also addresses affirmative duties, constitutional tort actions in state courts, and attorney's fees. Further, this book is organized around the statutory language of section 1983, thereby driving home the crucial distinction between prima facie cases and constitutional tort immunities and defenses. The fourth edition covers Supreme Court decisions from the past several years, including Minneci v. Pollard (chapter 1), Lane v. Franks and Plumhoff v. Rickard (chapter 3), Connick v. Thompson (chapter 5), Rehberg v. Paulk (chapter 7), Carroll v. Carman, Reichle v. Howards, Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, Camreta v. Greene, Tolan v. Cotton, Ortiz v. Johnson and Filarsky v. Delia (chapter 8), Lefemine v. Wideman and Perdue v. Kenny A. (chapter 12). The circuit courts have been active over the past few years. We have extensively revised the notes to take account of the recent developments. This edition also welcomes Fred Smith as a coauthor. Constitutional Torts studies circuit and district court decisions as crucial to understanding the developing law of Section 1983, because (a) they show how general principles of law pronounced by the Supreme Court are actually applied; (b) the Supreme Court rarely visits some important aspects of the doctrine; and (c) in this dynamic area of the law, the lower courts are the first to identify new issues and new ways of approaching old problems. At the same time, the materials continue to emphasize the "tort" aspects of Section 1983 litigation, especially with regard to affirmative duties, causation, official immunity, and damages. These materials illuminate both the similarities and differences between constitutional torts and analogous principles developed in the common law tort setting. By studying both tort and constitutional principles, students learn how to argue for and against the application of common law tort principles to constitutional tort issues, and will come to understand both the theoretical and practical consequences of the constitutional underpinnings of the litigation. Constitutional Torts provides a thorough treatment of compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. These materials not only explain the basic doctrine, but explore their strategic implications on the conduct of litigation. A Teacher's Manual is available to professors. This book also is available in a three-hole punched, alternative loose-leaf version printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with wider margins and with the same pagination as the hardbound book.

Law's Trials analyzes the performance of US courts in upholding the rule of law during the 'war on terror'.

When we think of constitutional law, we invariably think of the United States Supreme Court and the federal court system. Yet much of our constitutional law is not made at the federal level. In 51 Imperfect Solutions, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton argues that American Constitutional Law should account for the role of the state courts and state constitutions, together with the federal courts and the federal constitution, in protecting individual liberties. The book tells four stories that arise in four different areas of constitutional law: equal protection; criminal procedure; privacy; and free speech and free exercise of religion. Traditional accounts of these bedrock debates about the relationship of the individual to the state focus on decisions of the United States Supreme Court. But these explanations tell just part of the story. The book corrects this omission by looking at each issue-and some others as well-through the lens of many constitutions, not one constitution; of many courts, not one court; and of all American judges, not federal or state judges. Taken together, the stories reveal a remarkably complex, nuanced, ever-changing federalist system, one that ought to make lawyers and litigants pause before reflexively assuming that the United States Supreme Court alone has all of the answers to the most vexing constitutional questions. If there is a central conviction of the book, it's that an underappreciation of state constitutional law has hurt state and federal law and has undermined the appropriate balance between state and federal courts in protecting individual liberty. In trying to correct this imbalance, the book also offers several ideas for reform.

Eric M. Freedman "Making Habeas Work: A Legal History" explores habeas corpus, a judicial order that requires a person under arrest to be brought before an independent judge or into court. In his book, Freedman critically discusses habeas corpus as a common law writ, as a legal remedy and as an instrument of checks and balances.

We can’t afford to be complacent any more: “A formidable book . . . extremely rich in historical examples, case studies, and quantitative data.” —International Journal of Constitutional Law Democracies are in danger. Around the world, a wave of populist leaders threatens to erode the core structures of democratic self-rule. In the United States, the tenure of Donald Trump marks a decisive turning point for many. What kind of president intimidates jurors, calls the news media the “enemy of the American people,” and seeks foreign assistance investigating domestic political rivals? Many think the Constitution will safeguard us from lasting damage. But is that assumption justified? Drawing on an array of other countries’ experiences, Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Z. Huq show how constitutional rules can both hinder and hasten the decline of democratic institutions. The checks and balances of the federal government, a robust civil society and media, and individual rights—such as those enshrined in the First Amendment—often fail as bulwarks against democratic decline. The sobering reality, they contend, is that the US Constitution’s design makes democratic erosion more, not less, likely. Its structural rigidity has had unforeseen consequence—leaving the presidency weakly regulated and empowering the Supreme Court to conjure up doctrines that ultimately facilitate rather than inhibit rights violations. Even the bright spots in the Constitution—the First Amendment, for example—may have perverse consequences in the hands of a deft communicator who can degrade the public sphere by wielding hateful language banned in many other democracies. We—and the rest of the world—can do better, and the authors conclude by laying out practical steps for how laws and constitutional design can play a more positive role in managing the risk. “This book makes a huge contribution to our understanding of how democracies erode and what institutional reforms would make it harder for authoritarian populists to entrench their power.” —Yascha Mounk, author of The People vs. Democracy “Whereas other recent books on the crisis of American democracy focus on what has gone wrong, Ginsburg and Huq provide us with clear-eyed proposals—including some bold constitutional reforms—for how to fix it.” —Steven Levitsky, New York Times–bestselling coauthor of How Democracies Die