Judicial Review The Laws of Australia acquaints practitioners and students with the principles of Judicial Review in Australia. It is an encyclopaedic and practical work whichcovers judicial review of administrative decisions at the state, territory and federal levels.

Legisprudence considers a variety of perspectives and relies on contributions from numerous different disciplines. Rather than providing examples of the various possible approaches to legisprudential studies, this book – bringing together lawyers and legal theorists from seven different countries – highlights two aspects of the many disciplines involved. Firstly, it discusses theoretical abstraction, which borders on, or enters into the realm of full-fledged philosophical speculation. Secondly, it examines empirical observation of specific cases, precisely situated regarding their spatial or historical collocation, or referring to a particular species of legislative policy. Focusing on legislation both as a process and as a result, the aim of the book is twofold: on the one hand, it demonstrates that, far from being a purely theoretical and exclusively academic intellectual enterprise, legisprudence can offer criteria for both assessing and improving the quality of real-world legislation. On the other hand, it shows how lawmaking is at least as interesting and legitimate a field of inquiry as adjudication and interpretation of laws for legal theorists and philosophers of law, and that they are already equipped with extremely valuable intellectual tools for fruitful legisprudential inquiry. The book is organized in two parts. The first part comprises legal-theoretical accounts on general aspects of legislation as a process and as a result. The second part presents contributions focusing on specific experiences of evaluations of legislative quality and contributions to the legislature’s work on the part of the public, as well as on particular legislative policies, methodologies in lawmaking, and problems regarding legislation as an instrument.

Two lectures delivered before the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania.

When the Supreme Court strikes down favored legislation, politicians cry judicial activism. When the law is one politicians oppose, the court is heroically righting a wrong. In our polarized moment of partisan fervor, the Supreme Court’s routine work of judicial review is increasingly viewed through a political lens, decried by one side or the other as judicial overreach, or “legislating from the bench.” But is this really the case? Keith E. Whittington asks in Repugnant Laws, a first-of-its-kind history of judicial review. A thorough examination of the record of judicial review requires first a comprehensive inventory of relevant cases. To this end, Whittington revises the extant catalog of cases in which the court has struck down a federal statute and adds to this, for the first time, a complete catalog of cases upholding laws of Congress against constitutional challenges. With reference to this inventory, Whittington is then able to offer a reassessment of the prevalence of judicial review, an account of how the power of judicial review has evolved over time, and a persuasive challenge to the idea of an antidemocratic, heroic court. In this analysis, it becomes apparent that that the court is political and often partisan, operating as a political ally to dominant political coalitions; vulnerable and largely unable to sustain consistent opposition to the policy priorities of empowered political majorities; and quasi-independent, actively exercising the power of judicial review to pursue the justices’ own priorities within bounds of what is politically tolerable. The court, Repugnant Laws suggests, is a political institution operating in a political environment to advance controversial principles, often with the aid of political leaders who sometimes encourage and generally tolerate the judicial nullification of federal laws because it serves their own interests to do so. In the midst of heated battles over partisan and activist Supreme Court justices, Keith Whittington’s work reminds us that, for better or for worse, the court reflects the politics of its time.

Presents a study of the operation of judicial review in Supreme Court of the State of New York from 1906 to 1938, focusing on the attitude of state courts to state statutes.