Abstract

This article attempts to: 1) illustrate the inherent ambiguities of Rule 52(a), exacerbated by a court-created fact typology; 2) explain one of those types-the constitutional fact doctrine-and demonstrate how the Supreme Court has applied that doctrine inconsistently; and 3) explore whether the Sixth Circuit, by invoking the constitutional fact doctrine in Grutter, was attempting to extend the doctrine into the jurisprudence of Fourteenth Amendment intentional discrimination claims, or wrongfully appropriating the trial court's fact finding role.

Included in

Courts Commons

Share

COinS