Linde’s Legacy: The Triumph of Oregon State Constitutional Law, 1970-2000. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Lawyers Need Law: Judicial Federalism, State Courts, and Lawyers in Search and Seizure Cases
The progress of judicial federalism, the independent interpretation of state constitutions, has generally been limited. This article explores how lawyers have contributed to the development of state constitutional rights law in the search and seizure context. Through a comparative study of lawyers in New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington, I argue that the ideational support provided by lawyers in the form of constitutional arguments has varied widely across the states in response to the legal signals sent by their high courts and the United States Supreme Court. In essence, the argument is that lawyers need law and in the area of judicial federalism have largely waited for their state courts to provide some measure of leadership.
Arguing Gunwall The Effect of the Criteria Test on Constitutional Rights Claims
Exploring legal development requires more than simply examining the votes of judges because legal development embraces the actions of multiple actors. At a minimum, courts require lawyers to develop and present cases to them for adjudication. While courts need lawyers, lawyers need law; in other words, courts rely on lawyers to develop cases for their review, but the law provided by those courts shapes the actions of lawyers. This article examines the development of state constitutional law by exploring the interactions between lawyers and the Washington Supreme Court after the court required specific brief- ing practices for state constitutional arguments and the degree to which Washington lawyers responded. Utilizing legal briefs in Washington and some comparative data, I argue that the court was moderately successful at encouraging more thorough constitutional claims. This highlights the importance of con- sidering how lawyers respond to court signals not only in the presence or absence of certain legal argu- ments but also in the content of those arguments.
Assessing the State of State Constitutionalism
2011
Abstract: State constitutions are terribly important legal documents, but their interpretation is remarkably understudied (and, of course, highly undertheorized) in the academic literature. This review essay discusses Robert Williams's welcome new book, The Law of American State Constitutions (Oxford University Press, 2009).
“Rights talk” can combine with “law talk” in a myriad of ways, just as advocacy and mobilization strategies can adopt a multitude of attitudes towards law. Within the United States, and across the world, the economic, social, and cultural rights frame is neither fixed nor uniform. This article examines how framing claims to material interests as rights—such as the rights to access food, water, health care, housing, and education—can coexist with multiple stances towards law and towards the state. Applying the constitutional theory of Robert Cover to current legal arrangements, it describes two such orientations: the “redemptive” frame and what I term its “rejectionist” alternative. Redemptive frames can be understood as those that seek to reinterpret or change laws to emphasize incipient constitutional, statutory, common law, and international protections of economic, social, and cultural rights. Rejectionist frames, on the other hand, expose the lack of legal protections under current constitutional, statutory, common law, or internationally binding arrangements. The first frame proposes a way forward within current legal institutions, but may be vulnerable to co-optation by the very institutions in which change is sought. The second frame opposes the current structures of law and the state yet may be no less immune from co-optation. Like the notions of accommodation versus resistance, or of amelioration versus opposition, these concepts serve as heuristics to facilitate our understanding of the assumptions that undergird particular strategies of mobilization or advocacy, each sharing features of its apparent counterpart. The alternative frames of redemption and rejection may be observed in comparative and international advocacy around economic, social, and cultural rights. This article examines their applicability in the United States. Part I describes the common features of the economic, social, and cultural rights frame and demonstrates the normative openness that remains in the use of rights discourse. Part II provides a summary of the elements of redemption and rejection that may accompany claims of economic, social, and cultural rights, extending Cover’s constitutional theory to sub-constitutional and international legal domains. Part III applies the redemptive/ rejectionist distinction to current movements within the United States, including the Occupy Wall Street movement. It reveals the tensions between the agendas of redemption and rejection and the potential challenges of each for advocacy and mobilization around economic, social, and cultural rights.