In the federal system, Article III imposes some constraints on the permissible scope of delegation to non-Article III judges.
For example, Justice Scalia has authored two opinions requiring single-file arbitrations despite evidence that absent the capacity to use collective action, claims will not be brought.
22, 36-37 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Shearson/Am. Because the AAA takes data from the website each quarter, the materials on the web as of the spring of 2015 no longer included some of what had been posted for 2009, and new materials had been added to provide information through the end of 2014. When a judge dissents in whole or in part he shall give in writing the reasons for his dissent.” of 1776, Declaration of Rights, art. Despite arguments that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity, the Court shaped a functional exception, permitting the lawsuit to proceed against a state official rather than the state itself, and explained that federal courts, like state courts, “should, at all times, be opened” to claimants “for the purpose of protecting their property and their legal rights.” 2010). Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., the majority decision by Justice Scalia positioned suits to “enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers [as] . See Hope Metcalf & Judith Resnik, Gideon at Guantánamo: Democratic and Despotic Detention, 122 For example, in 1770, the Connecticut General Assembly acted akin to a court in responding to “150 causes, in law and equity, brought by petitioners.” Stephen A. 415, 429-30, 452 (1963) (discussing the NAACP’s right to litigate as a “form of political expression”); see also Cal.
at 255.indefatigable, thoughtful, and innovative research assistance of a group of Yale Law School students whom I thanked at the outset, and with the guidance of Bonnie Posick’s tracking of massive amounts of materials, we reviewed five years of data by downloading the file documenting arbitrations from July of 2009 through June (the second quarter) of 2014 and by filtering claims against AT&T. Hadfield, Innovating To Improve Access: Changing the Way Courts Regulate Legal Markets, of the supreme court, including all decisions on prerogative writs, shall be in writing and shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision and reasons for each denial of leave to appeal. 123 (1908), recognizing the ability of railroad stockholders to contest state rate regulation as confiscatory, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the Commerce Clause. the creation of courts of equity,” rather than resting “upon an implied right of action contained in the Supremacy Clause.” When federal courts enforced common law rights, questions have emerged about whether such rights were part of a general common law and could thus be interpreted and shaped by federal judges, or whether such rights derived from remedial structures provided by states. the Government argued unsuccessfully that access rights derived solely from habeas rights and that, once habeas petitions were denied, no constitutional access right remained.
Ass’n for Justice, Comparing Mandatory Arbitration and Litigation: Access, Process, and Outcomes (Apr.
The doctrine’s breadth is discussed infra Part IV.“An agreement to arbitrate before a specified tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute.” Scherck v.