Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

United States v. Juvenile Male 1

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided June 11, 1996No. 96-4212Published

1Concurring in the judgmentWilkinson, Chief Judge

While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I cannot subscribe to its reasoning. In my view, the government’s certification “that there is a substantial Federal interest in the ease or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction,” 18 U.S.C. § 5032, is not subject to judicial review. The “substantial Federal interest” inquiry is intended to channel prosecutorial discretion with respect to juvenile defendants, and is the sort of executive determination that should be immune from judicial oversight.

This conclusion follows directly from the language and structure of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. United States v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Wayte v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Ullmann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API