The Federal Case for Judicial Review - Professor Erin Delaney
From Iain Mcgee
The Federal Case for Judicial Review
Speaker: Professor Erin Delaney, Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Discussants: Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, University of Edinburgh Law School, and Professor Neil Walker, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations, University of Edinburgh Law School
In The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, Jeremy Waldron reset the terms of the debate over judicial review, concluding that a legislature outperformed a court as the institution best suited for resolving rights disagreements. Waldron’s arguments have had influence in both theory and practice, as even now, scholars and politicians in the United Kingdom draw on his work in debates over codifying the British constitution. But Waldron’s project is grounded in an unstated assumption—his political unit is a unitary nation state. Federation fundamentally challenges his approach and flips his conclusion on its head. This Article presents the federal case for judicial review, concluding that in a federation, it is the federal apex court that outperforms the federal legislature
Erin Delaney is Professor of Law at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and has an affiliated faculty position in Northwestern’s Department of Political Science. Her scholarship explores constitutional design in comparative perspective, focusing on judicial review, judicial design, and federalism. She is a member of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law and the Keith Forum.