\u3ci\u3eEx Parte Young\u3c/i\u3e and Federal Remedies for Human Rights Treaty Violations

The doctrine of Ex parte Young is typically described as an exception to the immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This Article contends that the Young doctrine also stands for the proposition that the Supremacy Clause creates an implied right of action for injunctive relief against state and local government officers who violate federal statutes or treaties. That right of action is available to plaintiffs who seek to enforce federal statutes or treaties against government officers unless Congress foreclosed the availability of a Young remedy when it enacted the statute, or the treaty makers foreclosed the availability of a Young remedy when they adopted the treaty. A Young remedy is therefore available to plaintiffs who raise treaty-based human rights claims against state or local government officers, because the treaty makers did not foreclose the availability of a Young remedy when they ratified human rights treaties

\u3cem\u3eBond v. United States\u3c/em\u3e: Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils

This essay makes two main points. First, the majority’s interpretation of the CWC Act is inconsistent with the statute and the underlying treaty. Indeed, the majority opinion displays a basic misunderstanding of the design of the underlying treaty. Second, Justice Scalia’s construction of the Necessary and Proper Clause is antithetical to the structure and original understanding of the Constitution. If adopted as law, Justice Scalia’s view would seriously harm the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the nation. Since Justice Scalia’s constitutional error would be far more damaging than the majority’s statutory error, the majority’s statutory misinterpretation is the lesser of two evils