The Death of Law and Equity
<p>On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingl...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog GmbH
|
| Series: | Verfassungsblog |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://verfassungsblog.de/the-death-of-law-and-equity/ |
| _version_ | 1817969252451221504 |
|---|---|
| author | David M. Driesen |
| author_facet | David M. Driesen |
| author_sort | David M. Driesen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases.</p>
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T20:18:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-31f2a95b00be4c30866fce0a209cecd1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2366-7044 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T20:18:59Z |
| publisher | Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog GmbH |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Verfassungsblog |
| spelling | doaj.art-31f2a95b00be4c30866fce0a209cecd12022-12-22T02:31:37ZdeuMax Steinbeis Verfassungsblog GmbHVerfassungsblog2366-70442366-7044The Death of Law and EquityDavid M. Driesen<p>On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases.</p> https://verfassungsblog.de/the-death-of-law-and-equity/COVID 19, health protection, major questions doctrine, US Supreme Court |
| spellingShingle | David M. Driesen The Death of Law and Equity Verfassungsblog COVID 19, health protection, major questions doctrine, US Supreme Court |
| title | The Death of Law and Equity |
| title_full | The Death of Law and Equity |
| title_fullStr | The Death of Law and Equity |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Death of Law and Equity |
| title_short | The Death of Law and Equity |
| title_sort | death of law and equity |
| topic | COVID 19, health protection, major questions doctrine, US Supreme Court |
| url | https://verfassungsblog.de/the-death-of-law-and-equity/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT davidmdriesen thedeathoflawandequity AT davidmdriesen deathoflawandequity |