Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: PrawfsWhy the Court ought to deny cert in Smith v Barrow...
By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel
... And almost any other case involving Pierce/Meyer rights. The reason, of course, is federalism.
Institutionally complex rights -- including rights to private property, rights to parental control, rights to separation of powers (see Calder v Bull), rights to an equally funded public education, and a bunch of others -- should simply not be federalized absent the most pressing need. This is not because these are unimportant rights. To the contrary, they are among the most important. But centralized definition of institutionally complex rights -- i.e., entitlements to essentially systems of collective governance -- generally is a disaster.
Such rights cannot be protected by a simple federal injunction on some well-defined set of state practices. Instead, these rights are entitlements to complex systems of law: The existence of the right requires comprehensive and detailed regulation, balancing (for instance) the interests of children, relatives, teachers, etc, all of whom have plausible federal entitlements to free speech, free exercise of religion, anti-establishment, and, of course, parental autonomy.
The notion that Article III courts can effectively protect such rights with centralized directives from a committee of nine elderly lawyers is laughable. Far better to leave these issues to the state courts' enforcement of state constitutions, where (a) the affected constituencies are powerful enough to amend the organic law to their liking; (b) the variety of jurisdictions is great enough to accommodate passionate differences of opinion about which rights are "fundamental"; and (c) the jurisdictions are small enough that there can be a constant dialogue between the legislature and court about exactly how to manage complex entitlements. (As an example, consider school finance litigation: love it or hate it, would you really want this issue -- about which the states and experts are deeply perplexed -- federalized?)
The Court acted wisely in San Antonio School District v Rodriguez not attempting to federalize the right to an equally funded public education. They'd do wisely here in refusing to federalize parental rights selectively to use the public school system.
Full post as published by Prawfs on May 16, 2008 (boomark / email).
Anna Nicole Smith's Legal Troubles
Court cases and legal issues related to Anna Nicole Smith
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Citigroup Smith Barney
Settle Gender Class Action for $33 Million
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.

Public School Teacher Has The Right To Send Her Child To Private School
Court Grants Cert in FCC v. Fox
Barrow & Rouse on School Vouchers
Public School Teacher Has The Right To Send Her Child To Private School
SCOTUS Grants Cert. to Consider Expansion of "Objective Good Faith" Exception to Exclusionary Rule








