Digital Commons Network^™

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Rule Of Lenity As A Rule Of Federalism, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Using Statutes To Set Legislative Rules: Entrenchment, Separation Of Powers, And The Rules Of Proceedings Clause, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Waiting For Davis V. United States -- Or Not Waiting, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

When Is Finality . . . Final?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Unconscionability Game: Strategic Judging And The Development Of Federal Arbitration Law, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article uses recent developments in the enforcement of arbitration agreements to illustrate one way in which strategic dynamics can drive doctrinal change. In a fairly short period of time, arbitration has grown from a method of resolving disputes between sophisticated business entities into a phenomenon that pervades the contemporary economy. The United States Supreme Court has encouraged this transformation through expansive interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act. But not all courts have embraced arbitration so fervently, and therefore case law in this area is marked by tension and conflict. The thesis of this Article is that we can better …

The New Line Item Veto Proposal: This Time It’S Constitutional (Mostly), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Jurisdiction Canon, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns the interpretation of jurisdictional statutes. The fundamental postulate of the law of the federal courts is that the federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. That principle is reinforced by a canon of statutory interpretation according to which statutes conferring federal subject-matter jurisdiction are to be construed narrowly, with ambiguities resolved against the availability of federal jurisdiction. This interpretive canon is over a century old and has been recited in thousands of federal cases, but its future has become uncertain. The Supreme Court recently stated that the canon does not apply to many of today’s most …

The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every year

This Article …

The Legal Debate Over The Senate's Rules: A Dialogue, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Senate: Out Of Order?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Due to the routine use of the filibuster and related devices, today’s Senate operates as a supermajoritarian body. This Symposium Article considers whether this supermajoritarian aspect of the Senate renders it dysfunctional and, if so, what can be done about it. I contend that the Senate is indeed broken. Its current supermajoritarian features have pernicious effects. Further, and contrary to the claims of many of the Senate’s defenders, this aspect of the Senate is not part of the original design. I go on to explain why the Senate’s procedures, despite their deficiencies, have nonetheless proven resistant to reform. The impediment …

Teaching Evaluations By Faculty Colleagues, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Interpretive Authority Of Consensus In The Lower Courts, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Statutory Interpretation And The Rest Of The Iceberg: Divergences Between The Lower Federal Courts And The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article examines the methods of statutory interpretation used by the lower federal courts, especially the federal district courts, and compares those methods to the practices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This novel research reveals both similarities across courts and some striking differences. The research shows that some interpretive tools are highly overrepresented in the Supreme Court’s decisions, while other tools are much more prevalent in the lower courts. Differences in prevalence persist even after accounting for the selection effect that stems from the Supreme Court’s discretionary docket. Another finding—based on a study of 40 years of cases from all …

Rationing The Constitution: Beyond And Below, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Return Of The Line Item Veto? Legalities, Practicalities, And Some Puzzles, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Public Reason As A Public Good, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Responding To The Loss Of An En Banc Quorum (Update: Prawfsblawg Gets Results!?), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

Measuring Circuit Splits: A Cautionary Note, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

A number of researchers have recently published new measures of the Supreme Court’s behavior in resolving conflicts in the lower courts. These new measures represent an improvement over prior, cruder approaches, but it turns out that measuring the Court’s resolutions of conflicts is surprisingly difficult. The aim of this methodological comment is to describe those difficulties and to establish several conclusions that follow from them. First, the new measures of the Court’s behavior are certainly imprecise and may reflect biased samples. Second, using the Supreme Court Database, which some studies rely on to assemble a dataset of cases resolving conflicts, …

Nebraska Safe Haven Snafu, Revisited, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

If The Judicial Confirmation Process Is Broken, Can A Statute Fix It?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Poll/Contest: What Shape Is The Constitution?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Judicial Activism And The Problem Of Induction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

A comment on Suzanna Sherry’s "Why We Need More Judicial Activism."