CURBING THE SUPREME COURT-STATE EXPERIENCES AND FEDERAL PROPOSALS

Authors

Katherine B. Fite, Member of the bar of New York, Department of State
Louis Baruch Rubinstein, Member of the bar of the District of Columbia; Department of State, American Agency, General Claims Arbitration, United States and Mexico

Abstract

The avalanche of proposals introduced in the last session of Congress seeking to curb the power of the Supreme Court to declare legislative acts unconstitutional and President Roosevelt's recent message to Congress on the judiciary have focused attention on the problem of the function of that Court in our governmental system.

This article does not take sides in the controversy. Its purpose is merely to review the developments in the four states, Colorado, Ohio, North Dakota and Nebraska, which by amendments to their constitutions have sought to place curbs on their supreme courts, and also to classify the proposals which have actually been introduced in Congress since 1900 with a view to the modification or even to the abolition of the power of judicial review now exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States. The new problems raised by such proposals can only be suggested. Their proper solutions are matters for the future and will require careful consideration, extensive study, and doubtless much further experimentation.

Recommended Citation

Katherine B. Fite & Louis B. Rubinstein, CURBING THE SUPREME COURT-STATE EXPERIENCES AND FEDERAL PROPOSALS, 35 Mich. L. Rev. 762 (1937).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol35/iss5/4