Event Title
Legislative Courts, Administrative Agencies, and the Northern Pipeline Decision
Location
Duke Law School
Start Date
28-1-1983 8:45 AM
End Date
28-1-1983 10:00 AM
Description
In Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Courts because their judges lacked article 111"s protections of salary and tenure. In so holding the Court significantly altered the criteria for deciding what cases have to be heard by judges with article 111 protections. In this article, Professor Redsh criticizes the criteria adopted by the Justices, and suggests alternative criteria which would better foster the values behind the independence protections of article III In addition, he examines the implications of the various criteria for the continued use of administrative agencies as adjudicators of federal law.
Related Paper
Martin H. Redish, Legislative Courts, Administrative Agencies, and the Northern Pipeline Decision, 1983 Duke Law Journal 197-229 (1983)
Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol32/iss2/1Legislative Courts, Administrative Agencies, and the Northern Pipeline Decision
Duke Law School
In Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Courts because their judges lacked article 111"s protections of salary and tenure. In so holding the Court significantly altered the criteria for deciding what cases have to be heard by judges with article 111 protections. In this article, Professor Redsh criticizes the criteria adopted by the Justices, and suggests alternative criteria which would better foster the values behind the independence protections of article III In addition, he examines the implications of the various criteria for the continued use of administrative agencies as adjudicators of federal law.
Comments
This event was not recorded.