Digital Commons Network^™

Jurisdiction Revisited: The Inherent Supervisory Power Of The Courts To Review Administrative Decisions - The Case Of R (Ignaoua) V Sshd [2013] Ewca Civ 1498, Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai

Patrick Matthew Hassan-Morlai

The Court of Appeal handed down its decision in R (Ignaoua) v SSHD on 21 November. Ignaoua emphasizes that Parliament does not purport to remove the court’s jurisdiction to entertain judicial review proceedings under Section 15 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. This paper argues that the provisions in both the primary and secondary legislation in Ignaoua are clear enough to convey Parliament’s intention to give the Home Secretary the power to terminate judicial review proceedings or appeal from judicial review proceedings relating to a direction to exclude a foreign national from the United Kingdom. However, the Court of …

Activismo Judicial. Un Marco Para La Discusión, Sergio Verdugo Sverdugor@Udd.Cl, José Francisco García

Sergio Verdugo R.

No abstract provided.

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Exposing Judges' Unaccountability And Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing: Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting, Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

Dr. Richard Cordero Esq.

This study analyzes official statistics of the Federal Judiciary, legal provisions, and other publicly filed documents. It discusses how federal judges’ life-appointment; de facto unimpeachability and irremovability; self-immunization from discipline through abuse of the Judiciary’s statutory self-policing authority; abuse of its vast Information Technology resources to interfere with their complainants’ communications; the secrecy in which they cover their adjudicative, administrative, disciplinary, and policy-making acts; and third parties’ fear of their individual and close rank retaliation render judges unaccountable. Their unaccountability makes their abuse of power riskless; the enormous amount of the most insidious corruptor over which they rule, money!, …

Beyond Finality: How Making Criminal Judgments Less Final Can Further The Interests Of Finality, Andrew Chongseh Kim

Andrew Chongseh Kim

Courts and scholars commonly assume that granting convicted defendants more liberal rights to challenge their judgments would harm society’s interests in “finality.” According to conventional wisdom, finality in criminal judgments is necessary to conserve resources, encourage efficient behavior by defense counsel, and deter crime. Thus, under the common analysis, the extent to which convicted defendants should be allowed to challenge their judgments depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice to validate defendants’ rights. This Article argues that expanding defendants’ rights on post-conviction review does not always harm these interests. Rather, more liberal review can often conserve state resources, …

Overruling Precedent: "A Derelict In The Stream Of The Law", Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Will the Supreme Court overrule Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. N.L.R.B., 535 U.S. 137 (2002), its precedent that treats unlawful alien workers as criminals and denies them backpay for a violation of a labor law? More generally, what are the statistical indicators of a precedent that the Supreme Court overrules— and how well does Hoffman Plastic fit that profile? To answer these research questions, I analyze two unique databases— 128 federal and state rulings from 2002-2012 that involved Hoffman Plastic’s remedy issue, and a sample of 154 Supreme Court pairings of an overruled precedent, and the decision that explicitly …

Holmes And The Common Law: A Jury's Duty, Matthew P. Cline

Matthew P Cline

The notion of a small group of peers whose responsibility it is to play a part in determining the outcome of a trial is central to the common conception of the American legal system. Memorialized in the Constitution of the United States as a fundamental right, and in the national consciousness as the proud, if begrudged, duty of all citizens, juries are often discussed, but perhaps not always understood. Whatever misunderstandings have come to be, certainly many of them sprang from the juxtaposition of jury and judge. Why do we have both? How are their responsibilities divided? Who truly decides …

Much Ado About Nothing?: What The Numbers Tell Us About How State Courts Apply The Unconscionability Doctrine, Susan D. Landrum

Susan Landrum

No abstract provided.

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

The Arbitration Clause As Super Contract, Richard Frankel

Richard Frankel

It is widely acknowledged that the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was to place arbitration clauses on equal footing with other contracts. Nonetheless, federal and state courts have turned arbitration clauses into “super contracts” by creating special interpretive rules for arbitration clauses that do not apply to other contracts. In doing so, they have relied extensively, and incorrectly, on the Supreme Court’s determination that the FAA embodies a federal policy favoring arbitration.

While many scholars have focused attention on the public policy rationales for and against arbitration, few have explored how arbitration clauses should be interpreted. This article fills …

Costs Of Codification, Dru Stevenson

Dru Stevenson

Between the Civil War and World War II, every state and the federal government shifted toward codified versions of their statutes. Academia has so far ignored the systemic effects of this dramatic change. For example, the consensus view in the academic literature about rules and standards has been that precise rules present higher enactment costs for legislatures than would general standards, while vague standards present higher information costs for courts and citizens than do rules. Systematic codification – featuring hierarchical format and numbering, topical arrangement, and cross-references – inverts this relationship, lowering transaction costs for legislatures and increasing information costs …

E-Jurors:A View From The Bench, Judge Antoinette Plogstedt

Judge Antoinette Plogstedt

E-JURORS: A View From the Bench

Electronic jurors pose new twists to an old problem. With emerging technology in mobile devices, social media, and internet research, juror misconduct exists in new shapes and forms. Many jurisdictions have made attempts to curb electronic misconduct by modifying standard jury instruction and confiscating juror cell phones. Some judges have implemented jury instructions which remind jurors to refrain from communicating about the case and conducting on-line research. However, their efforts fall short. In previous literature, practicioners, students and a few scholars have offered suggestions on modifying jury instructions to better inform jurors of prohibited …

Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …

Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2 states that terms of imprisonment “shall be served concurrently or consecutively.” The Code’s plain language does not authorize courts to impose partially consecutive, blended, or “split sentences. Partially consecutive sentences would impermissibly read into the Code a third sentencing option, thus contradicting Indiana’s well-settled jurisprudence and undermining the goal of reasonable uniformity in sentencing. The decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals should therefore be reversed.

Retention Redux: Iowa 2012, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In 2010, Iowa voters ousted three members of the Iowa Supreme Court for their participation in that court's ruling that Iowa's statutory ban on same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution. In 2012, however, Iowa voters opted to retain a fourth member of that same court. This article examines the differences between the two elections.

From Weems To Graham: The Curious Evolution Of Evolving Standards Of Decency, Zachary Baron Shemtob

Zachary Shemtob

Since the 1958 case of Trop v. Dulles, the Supreme Court has held that grossly disproportionate punishments are cruel and unusual if they violate “the evolving standards of decency of a maturing society.” Traditionally, this was interpreted as prohibiting capital sentences for certain types of crimes and classes of offenders. More recently, in Graham v. Florida, the Court applied evolving standards to incarceration, banning the sentencing of juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes to life without parole.

This article breaks the Court’s understanding of evolving standards of decency into distinct periods. In each period the justices encountered a host of novel …

Animus And Marriage Equality, Susannah W. Pollvogt

Susannah W Pollvogt

Many scholars have speculated about the approach the United States Supreme Court might take in the marriage equality cases currently on its docket. One option that is underexplored is that the Court may revive and rationalize the doctrine of unconstitutional animus. Dormant since the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, the doctrine of unconstitutional animus has made only fleeting appearances in the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence, and when it has appeared, it has taken on a distinct incarnation in every instance. For this reason, both scholars and practitioners consider the doctrine to be ill-defined and unreliable. Nonetheless, the doctrine of …

Suspect Classification And Its Discontents, Susannah W. Pollvogt

Susannah W Pollvogt

Suspect classification analysis and the associated tiers of scrutiny framework are the primary doctrinal features of contemporary equal protection jurisprudence. How plaintiffs fare under these twin doctrines determines the ultimate fate of their equal protection claims. But neither doctrine finds firm footing in precedent or theory. Rather, a close examination of the United States Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence reveals these doctrines as historically contingent and lacking in any principled justification. But rather than disregard the contributions of these cases altogether, this Article mines that same body of law not for the discrete doctrinal mechanisms developed in each case, but …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

A Revised View Of The Judicial Hunch, Linda L. Berger

Linda L. Berger

Judicial intuition is misunderstood. Labeled as cognitive bias, it is held responsible for stereotypes of character and credibility. Framed as mental shortcut, it is blamed for overconfident and mistaken predictions. Depicted as flashes of insight, it takes credit for unearned wisdom. The true value of judicial intuition falls somewhere in between. When judges are making judgments about people (he looks trustworthy) or the future (she will be the better parent), the critics are correct: intuition based on past experience may close minds. Once a judge recognizes a familiar pattern in a few details, she may fail to see the whole …

Teaching U.S. V. Windsor: The Defense Of Marriage Act And Its Constitutional Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Students are captivated by contemporary, high-profile Supreme Court cases. They recognize the litigants featured on the news, they debate the public policy, sociological and other real world implications of the arguments in school and their peers and parents prod them to discuss their opinions outside of class. I incorporate very recent and noteworthy Supreme Court cases in my legal studies courses with great success. My students are more engaged and prepared than when I assign a textbook chapter (students would rather track the law as it develops in real time). They tend to recall the arguments and legal theories well …

2nd Amendment: The Right To Keep & Bear Arms -- Teaching D.C. V. Heller, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The D.C. v. Heller case is an incredible vehicle to teach about the United States Constitution. The case revolves around the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and shines a spotlight on Originalism as a theory of Constitutional interpretation. These slides show how the case evolved from the District Court to the Supreme Court. They also teach the facts of the case and the different opinions on both sides of the debate. In the end, readers will learn a great deal about the Second Amendment and its application to federal and state/local gun control laws as well as …

Teaching The U.S. V. Windsor Same Sex Marriage/Equal Protection/Doma Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The same sex marriage cases are proving to be the hottest of topics during a very eventful Supreme Court term. The U.S. v. Windsor case is a fitting vehicle to cover the topic. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) equal protection, (2) federalism, (3) executive discretion to defend federal laws, (4) incorporation and more.

Article Iii: Cases & Controversies - Teaching The Already V. Nike Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Nike is the market leader selling athletic shoes worldwide. Already markets its products to a smaller segment of the athletic shoe market. These two companies battled at the intersection of the intellectual property, federal court jurisdiction and constitutional law. These slides help teach the Already v. Nike Supreme Court case. These slides cover issues such as Article III cases & controversies, intellectual property rights in trademarks and patents as well as mootness and standing doctrines.

Ending Judgment Arbitrage: Jurisdictional Competition And The Enforcement Of Foreign Money Judgments In The United States, Gregory Shill

Gregory Shill

Recent multi-billion-dollar damage awards issued by foreign courts against large American companies have focused attention on the once-obscure, patchwork system of enforcing foreign-country judgments in the United States. That system’s structural problems are even more serious than its critics have charged. However, the leading proposals for reform overlook the positive potential embedded in its design.

In the United States, no treaty or federal law controls the domestication of foreign judgments; the process is instead governed by state law. Although they are often conflated in practice, the procedure consists of two formally and conceptually distinct stages: foreign judgments must first be …

Judicial Independence In Post-Conflict Iraq: Establishing The Rule Of Law In An Islamic Constitutional Democracy, David Pimentel, Brian Anderson

David Pimentel

Contemporary Iraq is facing the full range of challenges that come with post-conflict transitional justice, including “paving the road toward peace and reconciliation” and establishing a functional state, characterized by the Rule of Law. Prospects for the establishment of an independent judiciary in Iraq are obstructed by a number of factors, including (1) how to apply the explicit recognition of the law of Islam in the Iraqi Constitution, (2) the inability to pass legislation on the Federal Courts of Iraq, leaving several provisions of the Iraqi Constitution unimplemented, and other critical elements of judicial independence unaddressed, including provisions for tenure, …

National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Brannon P. Denning, Glenn H. Reynolds

Brannon P. Denning

Using our now-famous "Five Takes" format, Glenn Reynolds and I analyze NFIB v. Sebelius from five different perspectives: (1) Sebelius as Marbury; (2) Sebelius as Bakke; (3) Sebelius and the "legitimating" power of judicial review; (4) Sebelius as a Thayerian decision; and (5) Sebelius as part of some long game of Chief Justice Roberts'.

Revisitando El Debate Sobre Los Abogados Integrantes Y La Independencia Del Poder Judicial, Sergio Verdugo Sverdugor@Udd.Cl, Carla Ottone

Sergio Verdugo R.

Se revisa el debate sobre la conveniencia del sistema de reemplazo judicial basado en los abogados integrantes y se analiza especialmente la crítica que sostiene que ellos no son independientes de los intereses del Poder Ejecutivo. Para ello, se examina el comportamiento de votación de los abogados integrantes de la tercera sala de la Corte Suprema en causas de indemnización de perjuicios donde el Fisco es parte, y se compara con la manera en que votan los ministros titulares. Se concluye que casi todos los jueces de esta sala votan de una manera generalmente favorable al interés fiscal, aunque esta …

Precedente Y Teorías De Interpretación En La Justicia Constitucional, Sergio Verdugo Sverdugor@Udd.Cl

Sergio Verdugo R.

No abstract provided.