Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- California Supreme Court (51)
- Survey (51)
- Supreme Court (28)
- United States Supreme Court (27)
- Litigation (21)
-
- Courts (15)
- Constitutional law (14)
- California (13)
- First Amendment (12)
- Alternative dispute resolution (11)
- Court (11)
- Judicial process (11)
- Arbitration (10)
- Attorney (10)
- Constitution (10)
- Constitutional Law (10)
- Judges (9)
- Juvenile offenders (9)
- Legislation (9)
- Federalism (8)
- Jurisdiction (8)
- Juvenile court (8)
- Mediation (8)
- Trial (8)
- Criminal Procedure (7)
- John Roberts (7)
- Jury (7)
- Juvenile justice (7)
- Samuel Alito (7)
- Crime (6)
Articles 1 - 30 of 257
Full-Text Articles in Law
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
Pepperdine Law Review
Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court is one of our most precious institutions. However, for the last few years, American confidence in the Court has dropped to a new low. Less than 40% of Americans have confidence in the Court and its decisions. Recent revelations regarding luxury trips, gifts, and exclusive access for certain individuals to the Justices have raised questions about whether the Justices understand their basic ethical duties and can act in a fair and impartial manner. As commentators have noted, the Supreme Court stood as the only court in America that was not governed by an ethical code. The question …
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
Just as the American public is politically polarized, so too is the U.S. Supreme Court. More than ever before, a clear alignment exists between the Justices’ partisanship and their ideological leanings (known as “partisan sorting”). Disapproval of opposing-party identifiers also appears to have intensified (“partisan antipathy”). This Article offers evidence of both forms of polarization. It shows that partisan sorting has resulted in wide gaps in voting between Republican and Democratic appointees; and it supplies data on “us-against-them” judging in the form of increasing antipathy toward opposite-partisan presidents. Taken collectively, the data point not to law “all the way down,” …
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
Pepperdine Law Review
Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …
The Play’S The Thing: A Response To Judge Benjamin Beaton, Aaron J. Walayat
The Play’S The Thing: A Response To Judge Benjamin Beaton, Aaron J. Walayat
Pepperdine Law Review
In a recent speech, later published as an essay, the Hon. Benjamin Beaton of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky shared his critical suggestions against the use of the honorific “Your Honor,” preferring instead the more neutral title “judge.” Judge Beaton’s reason for this preference stems from a fear that the current practice of judicial titles emphasizes status over function, which may inflate the individual judge’s ego while miscommunicating to the public that judges make, rather than find, law. This position, however, is misguided. Judicial titles emphasize the authority of the law through the authority …
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Pepperdine Law Review
In the wake of both the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis of 2008, Congress established and expanded the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of this expansion, the SEC in-house administrative proceedings, designed to adjudicate SEC violations before the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs), were born. These in-house proceedings have faced multiple constitutional attacks in the past decade. In the most recent iteration of such challenges, Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house proceedings were unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) the in-house proceedings deprived petitioners of their constitutional right to jury …
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Pepperdine Law Review
Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Pepperdine Law Review
Amicus brief filing has reached “avalanche” volume. Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges look to these briefs particularly for non-case-specific factual information––“legislative facts”—relevant to a case. This Article calls attention to a recurrent yet unrecognized problem with amicus filings offering up legislative facts in the many cases centrally involving the most vulnerable members of society—namely, non-autonomous persons, including both adults incapacitated by mental illness, intellectual disability, or other condition, and children. Some amici present themselves as advocates for such persons but use the amicus platform to serve other constituencies and causes, making false or misleading factual presentations about the …
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich
Pepperdine Law Review
The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Pepperdine Law Review
Neither electoral politics, norms preservation, nor modest good government reform can restore the political system because they cannot mitigate the primary threat to the American democracy, Republican radicalism. Those who believe otherwise fail to appreciate how and why radicalism will continue to impede democratic restoration regardless of what happens at the ballot box, misdiagnose the underlying factors that produce and sustain GOP radicalism, and under-estimate the degree of democratic deterioration that has already taken place. Republicans do not need to prevail in every election to forestall the restoration of democracy or to prevent Democrats from governing. The only viable path …
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
Pepperdine Law Review
A Court-packing proposal is imminent. Mainstream Democratic Party Presidential Candidates are already supporting it. The number of Justices on the Supreme Court has been set at nine since 1869, but this is merely a statutory requirement. As soon as Democrats regain control of the Presidency and the Congress, Court-packing will be on the agenda, either expressly or under the guise of Court-reform. Now is the time for the American legal academy to join together to oppose this threat. Court-packing would threaten democracy, destroy the rule of law and undermine judicial independence. It is a pointless and unnecessary reaction born of …
Filling The Illinois Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias
Filling The Illinois Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias
Pepperdine Law Review
President Donald Trump repeatedly argues that appellate court appointments constitute his major success. The President and the United States Senate Republican Party majority have established records by approving fifty very conservative, young, and capable appellate court jurists. However, their confirmations have exacted a toll, particularly from the many federal district courts which address seventy-nine unfilled positions in 677 judicial posts. One constructive illustration has been the three Illinois tribunals which confront five pressing openings. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts classifies three as “emergencies,” because the vacant seats have been protracted and involve substantial caseloads. Despite this circumstance, …
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Pepperdine Law Review
In Abercrombie & Fitch, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that Title VII religious accommodation cases are litigated and evaluated. This paper analyzes Abercrombie, explains how the Court eliminated religious accommodation as a freestanding cause of action, and suggests an altered proof framework for plaintiffs seeking an accommodation. The paper also explores the conflict between employee privacy rights and classic proof requirements for religious sincerity. The lower courts have largely failed to apprehend the change mandated by Abercrombie, with the result that their opinions are in disarray. The paper includes a chart organizing the diverse lower court opinions.
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon individuals for offenses against the United States. Courts have interpreted this power broadly, and the American public has historically accepted its use, even in the face of several controversial pardons over the last five decades. However, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio—a former Arizona sheriff who was held in criminal contempt of court for continuing to illegally detain suspected undocumented immigrants—scholars, activists, and political figures questioned whether this pardon was unconstitutional. This Comment discusses the Court’s interpretation of the pardoning power, controversial pardons in modern history, and the details of the …
The Johnson & Johnson Problem: The Supreme Court Limited The Armed Career Criminal Act's "Violent Felony" Provision—And Our Children Are Paying, Shelby Burns
Pepperdine Law Review
The Armed Career Criminal Act and United States Sentencing Guidelines prescribe sentence enhancements based upon a defendant’s prior convictions. In particular, these federal sentencing tools contain violent felony provisions that outline the requirements a state criminal statute must satisfy for a conviction to constitute a violent felony, making the convicted person eligible for a federal sentence enhancement. However, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) severely limited the scope of both sentencing tools’ violent felony provisions, making it more difficult for certain crimes to …
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Pepperdine Law Review
The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
Pepperdine Law Review
Lower courts face a dilemma when forced to choose between older Supreme Court precedent that directly controls the present legal dispute and an intervening Supreme Court ruling that relies on rationale which erodes or undermines the rationale of the direct precedent. Nearly thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced a rule requiring lower courts to follow the older precedent and disregard any inconsistency resulting from intervening rulings, effectively barring lower courts from “under-ruling” the older Supreme Court precedent. This prohibition on “under-ruling,” here referred to as the “Agostini Rule,” reflects a departure from the core rule-of-law values requiring similar cases …
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Pepperdine Law Review
A convention is a practice not memorialized in a formal rule but regularly engaged in out of a sense of obligation, where the sense of obligation arises from the view that adhering to the practice serves valuable goals of institutional organization and the public good. Constitutional conventions are important in making it possible for the national government to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble. Over the past twenty years or so, however, such conventions have eroded. This article addresses the role and importance of constitutional conventions in the United States, arguing that conventions’ erosion has been accompanied by …
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?, Michael W. Mcconnell
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?, Michael W. Mcconnell
Pepperdine Law Review
What are the politics of the federal judiciary, to the extent that the federal judiciary has politics? Whose interests do federal judges represent? This Essay puts forward five different kinds of politics that characterize the federal judiciary. First, the federal judiciary represents the educated elite. Second, the federal judiciary represents past political majorities. Third, the federal judiciary is more politically balanced than the legislative or executive branches. Fourth, the federal judiciary is organized by regions, and between those regions there is significant diversity. Fifth, to the extent that the judiciary leans one way or the other, it leans toward the …
Enforcement Of Icsid Convention Arbitral Awards In U.S. Courts, Abby Cohen Smutny, Anne D. Smith, Mccoy Pitt
Enforcement Of Icsid Convention Arbitral Awards In U.S. Courts, Abby Cohen Smutny, Anne D. Smith, Mccoy Pitt
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Court Assistance In Arbitration—Some Observations On The Critical Stand-By Function Of The Courts, Jan K. Schaefer
Court Assistance In Arbitration—Some Observations On The Critical Stand-By Function Of The Courts, Jan K. Schaefer
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Innovation In Arbitration Law: The Case Of Delaware, Christopher R. Drahozal
Innovation In Arbitration Law: The Case Of Delaware, Christopher R. Drahozal
Pepperdine Law Review
Delaware has become increasingly active in adopting innovative arbitration laws. In 2009, Delaware adopted a confidential system of “arbitration” conducted by sitting Court of Chancery judges, which was subsequently held unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment right of public access to the courts. In 2015, it enacted the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act (DRAA), creating a system of expedited arbitration in Delaware. Among other things, the DRAA sets mandatory time limits for the completion of arbitration proceedings (with financial penalties for arbitrators who fail to comply), restricts the degree of court involvement in the arbitration process, and provides for expeditious review …
Gateway-Schmateway: An Exchange Between George Bermann And Alan Rau, George Bermann, Alan Scott Rau
Gateway-Schmateway: An Exchange Between George Bermann And Alan Rau, George Bermann, Alan Scott Rau
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Introduction: International Arbitration And The Courts, Donald Earl Childress Iii, Jack J. Coe Jr., Lacey L. Estudillo
Introduction: International Arbitration And The Courts, Donald Earl Childress Iii, Jack J. Coe Jr., Lacey L. Estudillo
Pepperdine Law Review
What role do national courts play in international arbitration? Is international arbitration an “autonomous dispute resolution process, governed primarily by non-national rules and accepted international commercial rules and practices” where the influence of national courts is merely secondary? Or, in light of the fact that “international arbitration always operates in the shadow of national courts,” is it not more accurate to say that national courts and international arbitration act in partnership? On April 17, 2015, the Pepperdine Law Review convened a group of distinguished authorities from international practice and academia to discuss these and other related issues for a symposium …
A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis J. Sirico Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
This Article offers a simple solution for reducing the overload of questions at oral argument. Justices, individually or collectively, could pose written questions on facts and law to the litigants' counsel before oral argument and expect written responses. The submitted questions might inquire about the facts of the case, about the litigant's interpretation of the relevant law, about the response that the litigant would make to a hypothetical scenario, or about the precise holding that the litigant wishes the Court to propound. The responses should allow for more thought-out answers than oral argument can produce and might both reduce the …
“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty
“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty
Pepperdine Law Review
At the beginning of 2014, about a dozen states introduced or re-introduced bills to ban the use of Sharī’ah law. They hope to join the seven states that have ostensibly banned it to date. Anti-Sharī’ah advocates have cited a number of cases to back their tenuous claim that Sharī’ah is stealthily sneaking in through the doctrine of comity, but a close examination of the cases they cite contradicts their claim. Comity, when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another, has been accepted and denied based on legal principles and public policy, on a case-by-case basis. There is no creeping …