Conflict between the judges and government is built into the very concept of the judicial protection of human rights. The Human Rights Act does presuppose a basic consensus on human rights between the judges, on the one hand, and the government, people and Parliament on the other.
Are civil juries today incapable of understanding the complex issues presented to them? Are the results obtained through civil jury trials unfair, ill-informed or tainted? Should the United States move instead toward specialized juries, or trial before specialized judges, in place of the present system?
This policy brief examines a critical aspect of quality education litigation: the tools available to courts to fashion and ensure implementation of a constitutional method of funding public education to improve schools.
The principle of independence of the judiciary, while fundamental to a society based on the rule of law, is sometimes used to preclude the evaluation of courts. Such an approach is mistaken: judges and courts should be both independent and subject to evaluation.
This policy brief provides an overview of technological risk regulation and assesses the role of courts in reviewing the same. In doing so, it shows that the question of the capacity of courts is problematized by at least two different aspects: constitutional and institutional, both of which are malleable and context-specific.
The 1960s was a decade of racial progress in the US, but also of anger that not more was achieved. One response to the civil unrest in America’s cities was an executive order issued by President Johnson requiring firms contracting with the federal government to implement affirmative action to increase the employment of African Americans.