Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (5)
- Appeals (4)
- Retroactive Judicial Decisions (3)
- United States (3)
- Appellate Courts (2)
-
- Federal Courts (2)
- Judicial Process (2)
- Legal Interpretation (2)
- Precedents (2)
- Certiorari (1)
- Conflict of Judicial Opinion (1)
- Content Analysis (1)
- Courts (1)
- Joinder of Parties (1)
- Judicial Discretion (1)
- Judicial Power (1)
- Judicial Review (1)
- Judicial Selection (1)
- Judicial Statistics (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Legal Authorities (1)
- Legal Briefs (1)
- Legislative Processreme Court (1)
- Original Intent (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Standing (1)
- United States SupStatutes (1)
- Vacatur (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
No abstract provided.
The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
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 …
Statutory Interpretation And The Rest Of The Iceberg: Divergences Between The Lower Federal Courts And The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
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 …
Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman
Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
No abstract provided.
One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
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
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, …
Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Is statutory interpretation an activity that all courts should perform the same way? Courts and commentators implicitly so conclude. I believe that conclusion is wrong. Statutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.
I identify three kinds of institutional differences between courts that bear on which interpretive methods are appropriate: (1) the court’s place in the hierarchical structure of appellate review, (2) the court’s technical capacity and resources, and (3) the court’s democratic pedigree, particularly as reflected …
Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
No abstract provided.
Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
No abstract provided.
Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
No abstract provided.
Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
This Article examines the role of lower-court precedent in the US Supreme Court’s decisions. The Supreme Court is rarely the first court to consider a legal question, and therefore the Court has the opportunity to be informed by and perhaps even persuaded by the views of the various lower courts that have previously addressed the issue. This Article considers whether the Court should give weight to lower-court precedent as a matter of normative theory and whether the Court in fact does so as a matter of practice. To answer the normative question, this Article analyzes a variety of potential reasons …