580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Key research themes
1. How does judicial control balance the exercise of administrative discretion with ensuring accountability and legality in administrative actions?
This research area investigates the role of judicial oversight in supervising administrative authorities to prevent arbitrariness, abuse of discretionary power, and ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates. It is crucial because administrative discretion, while necessary for governance flexibility, poses risks of unchecked power that can harm individual rights and public interest without effective judicial review.
Key finding: This paper documents the constitutional and statutory mechanisms employed by Indian courts to check administrative action, such as writs, injunctions, and damages suits. It highlights judicial review's centrality in holding... Read more
Key finding: Through a focused examination of discretionary power, this article argues that judicial control is the most effective means of regulating discretionary authority to prevent abuse and arbitrariness. It delineates conditions... Read more
Key finding: This chapter highlights the use of judicial review and judicial activism as primary tools for institutional oversight of bureaucracy, emphasizing their role in protecting individual rights and promoting bureaucratic... Read more
Key finding: Examining administrative law and judicialization in East and Southeast Asia, this article finds an evolving role of courts from passive entities to active controllers of administrative discretion, especially through judicial... Read more
2. In what ways does judicial governance function as an institutional mechanism to regulate courts themselves and balance independence with accountability?
This research theme explores the internal governance of the judiciary, examining how courts and judges exercise authority over judicial administration, uphold standards, and maintain accountability without undermining judicial independence. It investigates governance structures, inter-judge relations, and mechanisms to enhance court efficiency and legitimacy, reflecting a crucial institutional dimension of judicial control relevant for constitutional systems.
Key finding: Using extensive internal documentation and interviews, this study of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reveals an innovated model of judicial self-governance characterized by decentralized, participatory decision-making... Read more
Key finding: This article critiques traditional legal approaches to judicial governance, arguing that legal standards alone are insufficient for effective judicial accountability and administration. It advocates an interdisciplinary... Read more
Key finding: The paper disentangles four key concepts—judicial independence, accountability, control, and constraints—and explicates their interrelations within Western constitutional systems. It argues that understanding these notions... Read more
3. How do courts function as regulatory bodies in the constitutional and rights protection domain beyond traditional dispute adjudication?
This theme conceptualizes courts not only as adjudicators but also as active regulators shaping constitutional rights, legal norms, and public policies. It revisits judicial power through a regulatory lens, articulating the courts’ role in managing aggregate social rights and constitutional norms, thereby offering a theoretical framework that integrates judicial decision-making with broader social regulation.
Key finding: This article proposes a novel regulatory theory in which common law courts function as regulators of fundamental and constitutional rights beyond individual disputes. It demonstrates that courts’ adjudication creates social... Read more
Key finding: Extending the regulatory theory of courts, this exposition argues that courts exercise interstitial legislative roles through their decisions by regulating constitutional rights and maintaining the balance of power within the... Read more