Journal article
Reasonableness, proportionality and general grounds of judicial review: a response
- Abstract:
- This is a response to an article written by Timothy Endicott, the principal thesis of which is that proportionality cannot and should not be a general ground of review. His thesis is predicated on doctrinal and normative assumptions. The doctrinal foundation for the thesis is mistaken, and the normative foundations are not tenable. It will be seen, moreover, that Endicott’s central thesis unravels, since he acknowledges that courts should intervene under the guise of reasonableness review in cases where disproportionate burdens are imposed, even where there is nothing akin to a qualified legal right.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 311.9KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publication website:
- https://keelelawreview.com/volume-2
Authors
- Publisher:
- Keele University
- Journal:
- Keele Law Review More from this journal
- Volume:
- 2
- Issue:
- 2021
- Pages:
- 1-24
- Publication date:
- 2021-06-19
- ISSN:
-
2732-5679
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1304547
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1304547
- Deposit date:
-
2022-12-10
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Keele Law Review
- Copyright date:
- 2021
- Rights statement:
- © 2021 Keele Law Review. All rights reserved.
- Notes:
- This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Keele Law Review.
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record