Mark Tushnet

When John Roberts was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court, he said he would act as an umpire. Instead, his Court is reshaping legal precedent through decisions unmistakably—though not always predictably—determined by politics as much as by law, on a Court almost perfectly politically divided. Harvard Law School professor and constitutional law expert Mark Tushnet clarifies the lines of conflict and what is at stake on the Supreme Court as it hangs “in the balance” between its conservatives and its liberals. Clear and deeply knowledgeable on both points of law and the Court’s key players, Tushnet offers a nuanced and surprising examination of the initial years of the Roberts Court. Covering the legal philosophies that have informed decisions on major cases such as the Affordable Care Act, the political structures behind Court appointments, and the face-off between John Roberts and Elena Kagan for intellectual dominance of the Court, In the Balance is a must-read for anyone looking for fresh insight into the Court’s impact on the everyday lives of Americans.

Unlike many other countries, the United States has few constitutional guarantees of social welfare rights such as income, housing, or healthcare. In part this is because many Americans believe that the courts cannot possibly enforce such guarantees. However, recent innovations in constitutional design in other countries suggest that such rights can be judicially enforced--not by increasing the power of the courts but by decreasing it. In Weak Courts, Strong Rights, Mark Tushnet uses a comparative legal perspective to show how creating weaker forms of judicial review may actually allow for stronger social welfare rights under American constitutional law. Under "strong-form" judicial review, as in the United States, judicial interpretations of the constitution are binding on other branches of government. In contrast, "weak-form" review allows the legislature and executive to reject constitutional rulings by the judiciary--as long as they do so publicly. Tushnet describes how weak-form review works in Great Britain and Canada and discusses the extent to which legislatures can be expected to enforce constitutional norms on their own. With that background, he turns to social welfare rights, explaining the connection between the "state action" or "horizontal effect" doctrine and the enforcement of social welfare rights. Tushnet then draws together the analysis of weak-form review and that of social welfare rights, explaining how weak-form review could be used to enforce those rights. He demonstrates that there is a clear judicial path--not an insurmountable judicial hurdle--to better enforcement of constitutional social welfare rights.

An ideal supplement for professors who wish to incorporate comparative law into their constitutional law courses, Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law introduces students to the various ways that nations other than the United States resolve contemporary constitutional questions. Covering both structural issues and individual rights, the book offers a wide but select range of readings on interesting constitutional issues in sixteen accessible chapters. Each brief chapter presents foreign case materials on a particular constitutional topic along with notes and questions that further illuminate the comparisons between U. S. constitutional law and that of other nations. Featuring selections by expert contributors from a variety of ideological and demographic backgrounds, the volume is designed to encourage students to reexamine and deepen their understanding of U. S. constitutional law in light of the alternatives offered by other systems. Features *Modular design of chapters allows instructors to pick and choose which topics they use for comparative study *Brief chapters can be easily integrated into relevant class discussions *Chapters authored by top constitutional law scholars who frame the cases with introductory and concluding comments *Covers a broad range of contemporary constitutional issues including property rights, abortion rights, regulation of hate speech, regulation of campaign finance, and religious freedom

Tushnet traces the concept of legal rightsthrough the 20th century--from their origins in classical liberalism, fashioned in legislatures and emphasizing choice and contract, to notions of personal autonomy and equality protected by the judicial system.

This book collects Mark Tushnet's essays on legal scholarship and legal education written between the 1970s and the end of the twentieth century. The essays deal with the development of critical legal studies and its current state, with persistent questions about the intellectual status of legal scholarship, with interdisciplinary legal scholarship (including law and economics), and with selected topics in legal pedagogy. Taken as a whole, the essays provide a good overview of Professor Tushnet's contributions to the intellectual history of legal scholarship and education in the United States.

International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis introduces the reader to the international legal instruments and case law governing the substantive and procedural dimensions of international human rights and humanitarian law, including economic, social, and cultural rights. The book, which was originally published in 2006, also discusses the history and organisational structure of human rights and humanitarian law enforcement mechanisms. A chapter is devoted a chapter to the issues surrounding the incorporation of international law into U. S. law, including principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation, conflict rules, and the self-execution doctrine. Questions and comments sections provide critical analyses of issues raised in the materials. The last chapter addresses theoretical issues facing contemporary international human rights and humanitarian law and its enforcement.

In this authoritative reckoning with the eighteen-year record of the Rehnquist Court, Georgetown law professor Mark Tushnet reveals how the decisions of nine deeply divided justices have left the future of the Court; and the nation; hanging in the balance. Many have assumed that the chasm on the Court has been between its liberals and its conservatives. In reality, the division was between those in tune with the modern post-Reagan Republican Party and those who, though considered to be in the Court's center, represent an older Republican tradition. As a result, the Court has modestly promoted the agenda of today's economic conservatives, but has regularly defeated the agenda of social issues conservatives; while paving the way for more radically conservative path in the future.

In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton announced that the "age of big government is over." Some Republicans accused him of cynically appropriating their themes, while many Democrats thought he was betraying the principles of the New Deal and the Great Society. Mark Tushnet argues that Clinton was stating an observed fact: the emergence of a new constitutional order in which the aspiration to achieve justice directly through law has been substantially chastened. Tushnet argues that the constitutional arrangements that prevailed in the United States from the 1930s to the 1990s have ended. We are now in a new constitutional order--one characterized by divided government, ideologically organized parties, and subdued constitutional ambition. Contrary to arguments that describe a threatened return to a pre-New Deal constitutional order, however, this book presents evidence that our current regime's animating principle is not the old belief that government cannot solve any problems but rather that government cannot solve any more problems. Tushnet examines the institutional arrangements that support the new constitutional order as well as Supreme Court decisions that reflect it. He also considers recent developments in constitutional scholarship, focusing on the idea of minimalism as appropriate to a regime with chastened ambitions. Tushnet discusses what we know so far about the impact of globalization on domestic constitutional law, particularly in the areas of international human rights and federalism. He concludes with predictions about the type of regulation we can expect from the new order. This is a major new analysis of the constitutional arrangements in the United States. Though it will not be received without controversy, it offers real explanatory and predictive power and provides important insights to both legal theorists and political scientists.

Here a leading scholar in constitutional law, Mark Tushnet, challenges hallowed American traditions of judicial review and judicial supremacy, which allow U. S. judges to invalidate "unconstitutional" governmental actions. Many people, particularly liberals, have "warm and fuzzy" feelings about judicial review. They are nervous about what might happen to unprotected constitutional provisions in the chaotic worlds of practical politics and everyday life. By examining a wide range of situations involving constitutional rights, Tushnet vigorously encourages us all to take responsibility for protecting our liberties. Guarding them is not the preserve of judges, he maintains, but a commitment of the citizenry to define itself as "We the People of the United States." The Constitution belongs to us collectively, as we act in political dialogue with each other--whether in the street, in the voting booth, or in the legislature as representatives of others. Tushnet urges that we create a "populist" constitutional law in which judicial declarations deserve no special consideration. But he warns that in so doing we must pursue reasonable interpretations of the "thin Constitution"--the fundamental American principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. A populist Constitution, he maintains, will be more effective than a document exclusively protected by the courts. Tushnet believes, for example, that the serious problems of the communist scare of the 1950s were aggravated when Senator Joseph McCarthy's opponents were lulled into inaction, believing that the judicial branch would step in and declare McCarthy's actions unconstitutional. Instead of fulfilling the expectations, the Court allowed McCarthy to continue his crusade until it was ended. Tushnet points out that in this context and in many others, errors occurred because of the existence of judicial review: neither the People nor their representatives felt empowered to enforce the Constitution because they mistakenly counted on the courts to do so. Tushnet's clarion call for a new kind of constitutional law will be essential reading for constitutional law experts, political scientists, and others interested in how and if the freedoms of the American Republic can survive into the twenty-first century.

Following on Making Civil Rights Law, which covered Thurgood Marshall's career from 1936-1961, this book focuses on Marshall's career on the Supreme Court from 1961-1991, where he was first Afro-American Justice. The first book on Justice Thurgood Marshall's years on the Supreme Court based on a comprehensive review of the Supreme Court papers of Justices Marshall and William J. Brennan, this work describes Marshall's special approach to constitutional law in areas ranging from civil rights and the death penalty to abortion and poverty. It also describes the Supreme Court's operations during Marshall's tenure, the relations among the justices, and the particular roles played by Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice Brennan, and Justice Antonin Scalia. The book locates the Supreme Court's actions from 1967 to 1991 in a broader historical and political context, explaining how Marshall's liberalism became increasingly isolated on a Court influenced by nation's drift in a more conservative direction.

The near conjunction of the bicentennial of the United States Constitution in 1989 and the completion of the European common market in 1992 provides a unique opportunity for the comparative consideration of constitutional federalism. The experience of the United States, with its mature federal system, offers some useful comparisons and insights into the processes that may follow in a further federalization of the European Community. This book, a collection of essays on the constitutional dimension of federalism, is drawn from a conference sponsored by the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities, and presents substantial analytic material on problems of federalism and integration. The collection begins with a brief foreword by Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, discussing the European community's move toward a national identity. Following are the book's six chapters, written by U. S. and European legal scholars. The first provides important historical insights into the extended time period necessary before the United States could be considered a unified nation. Chapter two examines the complexities of the constitutional law of interregional migration and trade in the United States. A pair of complementary chapters describe how federal systems can respond to, and attempt to preserve, the diverse cultures that are located within an integrated political system. The use of local guarantees of fundamental rights as a counterweight to national norms follows, and a concluding chapter argues against any necessary path of development from economic to political, social, or cultural integration. A bibliographical essay, references, and a complete subject index are also included. This unique collection of essays will be a valuable contribution to courses in comparative law and political science, and an important addition to academic, public, and law libraries.