Showing papers by "Cass R. Sunstein published in 1982"

Public Values, Private Interests, and the Equal Protection Clause

Abstract: The Equal Protection Clause is directed at the legality of classifications. When a classification is challenged, the first question is whether it is drawn on the basis of race or some other characteristic thought to call for \"heightened\" scrutiny.' That question is usually an easy one; it can be reframed as an inquiry into whether the statute classifies \"on its face\" in terms of the forbidden characteristic. If there is such a classification, the statute must be invalidated unless it survives heightened scrutiny, either strict or intermediate. If no such classification is involved, a second inquiry becomes necessary. Was the classification motivated by an \"intention\" to treat some class differently on the basis of race or, again, any other

Section 1983 and the Private Enforcement of Federal Law

Abstract: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, any person who is deprived \"of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,\" by any person acting under color of state law, may bring a private action to seek redress.1 In Maine v. Thiboutot,2 the Supreme Court held that the phrase \"and laws\" in section 1983 should be read literally, so as to create a private cause of action against a state official for violation of the federal statute providing for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (\"AFDC\").' A beneficiary of the AFDC program was thus entitled to bring suit in state or federal court to require state compliance with the federal statute, even though that statute was silent on the subject of private enforcement, and even though Congress had authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to enforce the statute against the states.4 If applied generally, the result in Thiboutot would mean that section 1983 creates a federal cause of action against any state official who has violated any federal law. Such a result would go far toward converting section 1983 into a state counterpart of the Administrative Procedure Act (\"APA\"),5 binding state officials to the

Participation, Public Law, and Venue Reform

Abstract: In recent years, regulatory reform has received considerable attention from all three branches of the federal government. The courts have developed a wide range of techniques to discipline and police the exercise of discretion by federal agencies.' Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan have issued executive orders asserting increasingly broad power over the regulatory process and demanding attention to the costs and benefits of agency initiatives.2 Congress has considered a number of routes to regulatory reform, including the legislative veto,s provisions for strengthened judicial