The Multiple-Stage Process of Judicial Review: Facial and As-Applied Constitutional Challenges to Legislation before the U.S. Supreme Court

Lindquist, Stefanie A.; Corley, Pamela C.

doi:10.1086/661947

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 368 statutes, 20 are criminal statutes. Over-breadth doctrine suggests that the Court is more likely to invalidate and find inseverable statutory provisions when challenged on free speech grounds (Dorf 1994, Jona 2008, Lindquist and Corley 2011). Therefore, I include a binary measure in which a 1 indicates whether a statute is challenged on free speech grounds in a case and 0 otherwise.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While a court can totally invalidate a statute, there are multiple saving constructions it can employ to preserve a statute as a means of judicial deference (Sherwin 2000). The court might decide that a statute is only unconstitutional as applied to a particular case (Lindquist and Corley 2011). If it does so, the statute still carries the full force of law except for the specific circumstances that led to the litigation.…”

Section: History Of Severability Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Severability Doctrine and the Exercise of Judicial Review

Kamp

2022

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most important doctrines a constitutional court must consider when exercising judicial review is severability. If a court decides that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, it must also decide whether that provision may be severed from the statute to allow the remainder to carry the full force of law. While the use of severability by constitutional courts has generated substantial controversy among legal scholars, there has been scant empirical analysis evaluating their claims of how courts employ severability doctrine. Relying on both legal and social science scholarship, I craft a series of hypotheses about how courts use severability. I test these hypotheses on the U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional decisions on important federal statutes over the post-war period. The analysis shows that both political and legal considerations influence the Court’s severability doctrine, simultaneously fueling and allaying the criticisms of the legal community.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: History Of Severability Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%