We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Consenting to Adjudication Outside the Article III Courts.
- Authors
Hessick, F. Andrew
- Abstract
Article III confers the judicial power on the federal courts, and it provides the judges of those courts with life tenure and salary guarantees to ensure that they decide disputes according to law instead of popular pressure. Despite this careful arrangement, the Supreme Court has not restricted the judicial power to the Article III courts. Instead, it has held that Article I tribunals--whose judges do not enjoy the salary and tenure guarantees provided by Article III--may adjudicate disputes if the parties consent to the tribunals' jurisdiction. This consent exception provides the basis for thousands of adjudications by Article I judges each year. This Article challenges the consent exception. It argues that the consent of the parties should not be a basis for adjudication before an Article I tribunal. As it explains, permitting Article I tribunals to adjudicate based on the parties' consent is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution and historical practice, and it undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.
- Subjects
UNITED States; JUDICIAL power; JUDGES; UNITED States. Constitution; RULE of law; UNITED States. Supreme Court; COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE procedure; UNITED States. Commodity Futures Trading Commission; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Vanderbilt Law Review, 2018, Vol 71, Issue 3, p715
- ISSN
0042-2533
- Publication type
Article