This article argues that Article I courts can use equitable principles to provide individuals who have been victimized by corrupt behavior of government attorneys with a remedy. Article III courts have struggled to define the powers of Article I courts in a way that does not do violence to the petition clause, the appropriations clause, or the takings clause, sometimes concluding that petitioners were entitled to no relief when the government had violated some right of the petitioners. After tracing the development of claims against the government in general, and in the extant Article I courts, the article employs Professors Hart and Sacks' rights and remedies dichotomy to show that Article I courts may use equitable doctrines to provide private litigants with a remedy for government attorney misconduct.
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Case, David A.
"Article I Courts, Substantive Rights, and Remedies for Government Misconduct,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 26:
1, Article 1.
David A. Case, Article I Courts, Substantive Rights, and Remedies for Government Misconduct, 26 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 101 (2005).