Abstract
In this brief note I question, in part, the justification for thinking that the US Supreme Court should – in a recent Opinion – consider the Rule of Law. I further consider whether it did in fact fail to do so. I take an introspective approach to this question and explore the validity of us – Rule of Law-people – taking a Rule of Law-centric view of the world. In this respect, I do not forensically examine the Court’s opinion nor do I question its general accuracy or acceptability. Instead, I consider the omission of any mention of the Rule of Law in terms of both the Court’s presentation of an argument and our consideration – as readers of a journal with a specific Rule of Law-centric focus – of the same. I conclude that, whilst it is possible to identify Rule of Law related issues almost anywhere, and it may be problematic to seek to do so in every instance, there are some places where it is appropriate to do so. The Court’s Opinion was one such place.
Highlights
In its recent opinion of Bank Markazi v Peterson 2016, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the validity of The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (2012) (‘‘the Act’’)
Burgess conceptions of the Rule of Law, when issues related to generality and retrospectivity are explicitly raised – in terms capable of impacting certainty and predictability – it is difficult to read the opinion without the Rule of Law coming to mind
In this note I question the justification for thinking that the Court should consider the Rule of Law in the Opinion and, further, consider whether it did fail to do so
Summary
In its recent opinion of Bank Markazi v Peterson 2016, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the validity of The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (2012) (‘‘the Act’’). P. Burgess conceptions of the Rule of Law, when issues related to generality and retrospectivity are explicitly raised – in terms capable of impacting certainty and predictability – it is difficult to read the opinion without the Rule of Law coming to mind. I do not forensically examine the Court’s opinion in relation to the Rule of Law nor do I question its general accuracy or acceptability. After briefly outlining the facts and the Opinion, I consider the omission of any Rule of Law references or content in terms of both the Court’s presentation of an argument and our consideration – as readers of a journal with a specific Rule of Law-centric focus – of the same. I will, consider several reasons why the Court’s opinion is significant in this context
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
