A ‘Non-Power’ Looks at Separation of Powers

On April 6, 1989, Dean, Alan B. Morrison of George Washington Law, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s ninth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: A ‘Non-Power’ Looks at Separation of Powers. Dean Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service at GW Law. He is responsible for creating pro bono opportunities for students, bringing a wide range of public interest programs to the law school, encouraging students to seek positions in the non-profit and government sectors, and assisting students find ways to fund their legal education to make it possible for them to pursue careers outside of traditional law firms. For most of his career, Dean Morrison worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which he co-founded with Ralph Nader in 1972 and directed for over 25 years. His work involved law reform litigation in various areas including: open government, opening up the legal profession, suing agencies that fail to comply with the law, enforcing principles of separation of powers, protecting the rights of consumers, and protecting unrepresented class members in class action settlements. He has argued 20 cases in the Supreme Court, including victories in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (holding lawyers subject to the antitrust laws for using minimum fee schedules); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (making commercial speech subject to the First Amendment); and INS v. Chadha (striking down over 200 federal laws containing the legislative veto as a violation of separation of powers). He currently teaches civil procedure and election law, and previously taught at Harvard, NYU, Stanford, Hawaii, and American University law schools. He is a member of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and was its president in 1999–2000. Among other positions, he served as an elected member of the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar, a member and then senior fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States, a member of the American Law Institute, and a member of the Committee on Science, Technology & Law of the National Academy of Science. He is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, served as a commissioned officer in the US Navy, and was an assistant U.S. attorney in New York

What the Shutts Opt-Out Right is and What it Ought to Be

This article discusses the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), regarding the right of an absent class member to opt out of a class action. The article addresses both the current prevailing understanding of Shutts, which is based on the personal jurisdiction strain of due process jurisprudence, and what the authors believe is a more useful understanding, based on the property rights strain of due process jurisprudence. As an addendum to the article, the authors propose a new civil procedure rule governing class actions that would implement their ideas about opt-out rights and class action governance more generally

The Necessity of Tradeoffs in a Properly Functioning Civil Procedure System

40 page

Protective Orders, Plaintiffs, Defendants and the Public Interest in Disclosure; Where Does the Balance Lie?

It is a basic principle of the American system of jurisprudence that the courts of the United States are open. That includes not only the opportunity for the public to attend courtroom proceedings, but also the right to examine the documents that are filed in court. However, this principle of openness can sometimes come into conflict with other principles in our justice system. Everyone recognizes that there are some situations in which information should not be made public, at least not immediately. The problem is how to identify and limit those situations in which information is not made public so that we do not have too much information kept secret. The problem is complicated because a litigant\u27s trial strategy may not be consistent with the public\u27s interest in greater disclosure. Perhaps the easiest way to describe the problem is to work through a law school hypothetical

Selective Judicial Activism in the Roberts Court

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito offers two main reasons why there is no Due Process right to an abortion in the Constitution, and hence why Roe v. Wade should be overturned: abortion is not mentioned in the text, and decisions about whether abortions should be permitted and, if so, under what conditions, are properly the province of the elected representatives and not federal judges. In this essay I show that, in many of the most significant cases decided by the Roberts Court, the Court has disregarded both of those reasons, and engaged in the kind of judicial activism it decried in Roe, in order to reach results that are favored by the Republican Party, whose Presidents have appointed the Justices that comprise the majority of the Roberts Court

What the Shutts Opt-Out Right is and What it Ought to Be

This article discusses the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s decision in Phillips Petrolem v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), regarding the right of an absent class member to opt out of a class action. The article addresses both the current prevailing understanding of Shutts, which is based on the personal jurisdiction strain of due process jurisprudence, and what the authors believe is a more useful understanding, based on the property rights strain of due process jurisprudence. As an addendum to the article, the authors propose a new civil procedure rule governing class actions that would implement their ideas about opt-out rights and class action governance more generally