Due Process and the Right to an Individualized Hearing

Due process requires the government to provide notice and a hearing before depriving individuals of protected rights. This right—the right to an individualized hearing—is powerful. It gives individuals the ability to know why the government is taking action that affects them; and it lets them oppose the government’s plans, often by presenting facts and arguments to a neutral decision-maker. As a result, the right to an individualized hearing can help shape the government’s substantive aims—and it even can prevent the government from acting at all. But, despite its importance, there is a longstanding exception to the right to an individualized hearing. Individualized procedures normally are not required when the government acts on more than a few people at the same time. Although the right to an individualized hearing and its exception are fundamental to due process doctrine, scholars disagree about this right’s origin, and courts have struggled to delineate its contours. This Article offers a new explanation for the scope of the right to an individualized hearing: it is a living relic of the once-pervasive “class legislation” doctrine. At one time, class legislation doctrine was a robust constitutional mechanism used both to prevent the elevation of one “class” of society at the expense of another and to minimize arbitrary distinctions between groups. Accordingly, class legislation doctrine helped courts enforce the key rule of law value of generality. Although class legislation doctrine has faded from its prominent place in constitutional law, shades of it survive in the right to an individualized hearing. Indeed, courts sorting out the contours of the right to an individualized hearing often invoke class legislation concepts that have been discarded from other areas of the law. Reconnecting the right to an individualized hearing with its class legislation origin sheds light on this mysterious but fundamental corner of due process doctrine. It also can help courts apply the right to an individualized hearing in ways that emphasize its crucial role in protecting the rule of law

The \u3cem\u3eKlein\u3c/em\u3e Rule of Decision Puzzle and the Self-Dealing Solution

Scholars and courts have struggled to make sense of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Klein, an intriguing but enigmatic opinion concerning the limits of Congress’s ability to interfere with cases pending before the federal courts. Klein is intriguing because its broad and emphatic language suggests significant limits on the power of Congress. Klein is enigmatic because the Court has never again struck down a statute because of Klein or even made clear what principle animates its result. In fact, despite reaffirming the existence of a principle based on Klein, the Court has repeatedly read it narrowly, suggesting that the principle it embodies has not been adequately articulated. This Article argues that Klein’s principle is a specific application of a robust constitutional tradition that restrains governmental self-dealing. A Klein principle restraining governmental self-dealing explains the Court’s Klein cases, situates the principle within constitutional theory and doctrine, and provides much-needed direction to lower courts wrestling with questions about legislative intrusions into judicial functions

The Equal Protection Component of Legislative Generality

This article advances the broad project outlined above by recognizing the equal protection component of legislative generality. Exploring the relationship between the Equal Protection Clause and the value of legislative generality both enhances an understanding of the proper bounds of the Equal Protection Clause and helps define the ultimate parameters of a value of legislative generality. Part I of this article defines and provides paradigmatic examples of special legislation. Part II identifies the most widely held conceptions of equality that can be enforced through the Equal Protection Clause and describes how special legislation offends these conceptions. Part III describes how the Equal Protection Clause, despite its powerful ability to enforce differing visions of equality, is incapable, on its own, of combatting special legislation. Part IV introduces the principle of legislative generality as a coherent mechanism for restraining special legislation. It concludes by drawing on equal protection doctrine and theory to help fashion a coherent and meaningful value of legislative generality

Structural and Dynamical Properties of Galaxies in a Hierarchical Universe: Sizes and Specific Angular Momenta

We use a state-of-the-art semi-analytic model to study the size and the specific angular momentum of galaxies. Our model includes a specific treatment for the angular momentum exchange between different galactic components. Disk scale radii are estimated from the angular momentum of the gaseous/stellar disk, while bulge sizes are estimated assuming energy conservation. The predicted size--mass and angular momentum--mass relations are in fair agreement with observational measurements in the local Universe, provided a treatment for gas dissipation during major mergers is included. Our treatment for disk instability leads to unrealistically small radii of bulges formed through this channel, and predicts an offset between the size--mass relations of central and satellite early-type galaxies, that is not observed. The model reproduces the observed dependence of the size--mass relation on morphology, and predicts a strong correlation between specific angular momentum and cold gas content. This correlation is a natural consequence of galaxy evolution: gas-rich galaxies reside in smaller halos, and form stars gradually until present day, while gas-poor ones reside in massive halos, that formed most of their stars at early epochs, when the angular momentum of their parent halos is low. The dynamical and structural properties of galaxies can be strongly affected by a different treatment for stellar feedback, as this would modify their star formation history. A higher angular momentum for gas accreted through rapid mode does not affect significantly the properties of massive galaxies today, but has a more important effect on low-mass galaxies at higher redshift.Comment: 26 pages, 14 figures, 4 appendices. Accepted for publication in MNRA

The Evolution of Sizes and Specific Angular Momenta in Hierarchical Models of Galaxy Formation and Evolution

We extend our previous work focused at $z\sim0$, studying the redshift evolution of galaxy dynamical properties using the state-of-the-art semi-analytic model GAEA: we show that the predicted size-mass relation for disky/star forming and quiescent galaxies is in good agreement with observational estimates, up to $z\sim2$. Bulge dominated galaxies have sizes that are offset low with respect to observational estimates, mainly due to our implementation of disk instability at high redshift. At large masses, both quiescent and bulge dominated galaxies have sizes smaller than observed. We interpret this as a consequence of our most massive galaxies having larger gas masses than observed, and therefore being more affected by dissipation. We argue that a proper treatment of quasar driven winds is needed to alleviate this problem. Our model compact galaxies have number densities in agreement with observational estimates and they form most of their stars in small and low angular momentum high-$z$ halos. GAEA predicts that a significant fraction of compact galaxies forming at high-$z$ is bound to merge with larger structures at lower redshifts: therefore they are not the progenitors of normal-size passive galaxies at $z=0$. Our model also predicts a stellar-halo size relation that is in good agreement with observational estimates. The ratio between stellar size and halo size is proportional to the halo spin and does not depend on stellar mass but for the most massive galaxies, where AGN feedback leads to a significant decrease of the retention factor (from about 80 per cent to 20 per cent).Comment: Accepted for publication in MNRAS, 17 pages, 11 figure