Law Review Hosts Symposium on Feb. 19-20: Judicial Supremacy v. Departmentalism

Description:  Who has the final say as to the meaning of the United States Constitution?  Most judges, lawyers, and members of the general public, as well as many academics, accept “judicial supremacy”: the notion that the judiciary, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, is the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.  But a growing number of scholars advocate “departmentalism”: the view that each branch of government—the legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary—has an independent role in determining the meaning of the Constitution.  In fact, some scholars argue that each branch has a duty to independently interpret the Constitution and to act upon its own view of what the Constitution means.  This symposium, hosted by the William & Mary Law  Review, will explore the important issues raised by the ongoing debate over constitutional interpretive authority.

Participants

Kathryn Ashley J.D. '16, Symposium Editor, William & Mary Law Review

Rebecca Brown, University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine, School of Law

Erin Delaney, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Neal Devins, William & Mary Law School

Mark Graber, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Tara Grove, William & Mary Law School

Laura A. Heymann, William & Mary Law School

Corinna Barrett Lain, University of Richmond School of Law

Allison Orr Larsen, William & Mary Law School

Sanford V. Levinson, University of Texas School of Law

Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law

Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law

Kevin C. Walsh, University of Richmond School of Law

Keith Whittington, Princeton University

Timothy Zick, William & Mary Law School

Program

Friday

1:30
Opening Remarks
Laura A. Heymann, Vice Dean, William & Mary Law School; Tara Grove, William & Mary Law School; Kathryn Ashley, J.D. '16, Symposium Editor, William & Mary Law Review

1:45
Theories of Interpretive Control
Moderator: Allison Orr Larsen, William & Mary Law School
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine, School of Law; Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law; Kevin C. Walsh, University of Richmond Law School

3:30
Judicial Review of Competing Constitutional Claims
Moderator: Timothy Zick, William & Mary Law School
Rebecca Brown, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Erin Delaney, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Saturday

8:15 AM
Breakfast

9
Institutional Incentives
Moderator: Sanford Levinson, University of Texas School of Law
Neal Devins, William & Mary Law School; Mark Graber, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

10:30
The Politics of Interpretive Control
Moderator: Tara Grove, William & Mary Law School
Corinna Barrett Lain, University of Richmond School of Law; Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law; Keith Whittington, Princeton University

11:45
Tara Grove, William & Mary Law School

This event is free and open to the public. 

About the Law Review

Since 1957, the William & Mary Law Review has published important scholarly work and has become one of the top general interest law journals in the country. Published six times per year - in October, November, December, March, April, and May - the Review has featured the work of noted scholars in all areas of the law.

About William & Mary Law School

Thomas Jefferson founded William & Mary Law School in 1779 to train leaders for the new nation. Now in its third century, America's oldest law school continues its historic mission of educating citizen lawyers who are prepared both to lead and to serve.