Law Commons^™

Courts Without Court, Andrew G. Ferguson

Vanderbilt Law Review

What role does the physical courthouse play in the administration of criminal justice? This Article uses recent experiments with virtual courts to reimagine a future without criminal courthouses at the center. The key insight of this Article is to reveal how integral physical courts are to carceral control and how the rise of virtual courts helps to decenter power away from judges. This Article examines the effects of online courts on defendants, lawyers, judges, witnesses, victims, and courthouse officials and offers a framework for a better and less court-centered future. By studying post-COVID-19 disruptions around traditional conceptions of place, time, …

Praxis And Paradox: Inside The Black Box Of Eviction Court, Lauren Sudeall, Daniel Pasciuti

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the American legal system, we typically conceive of legal disputes as governed by specific rules and procedures, resolved in a formalized court setting, with lawyers shepherding both parties through an adversarial process involving the introduction of evidence and burdens of proof. The often-highlighted exception to this understanding is the mass, assembly-line processing of cases, whether civil or criminal, in large, urban, lower-level courts. The gap left unfilled by either of these two narratives is how “court” functions for the average unrepresented litigant in smaller and nonurban jurisdictions across the United States.

For many tenants facing eviction, elements of the …

Statistical Precedent: Allocating Judicial Attention, Ryan W. Copus

Vanderbilt Law Review

The U.S. Courts of Appeals were once admired for their wealth of judicial attention and for their generosity in distributing it. At least by legend, almost all cases were afforded what William Richman and William Reynolds have termed the “Learned Hand Treatment.” Guided by Judge Learned Hand’s commandment that “[t]hou shalt not ration justice,” a panel of three judges would read the briefs, hear oral argument, deliberate at length, and prepare multiple drafts of an opinion. Once finished, the judges would publish their opinion, binding themselves and their colleagues in accordance with the common-law tradition. The final opinion would be …

Private Enforcement In Administrative Courts, Michael Sant'ambrogio

Vanderbilt Law Review

Scholars debating the relative merits of public and private enforcement have long trained their attention on the federal courts. For some, laws giving private litigants rights to vindicate important policies generate unaccountable private attorneys general" who interfere with public enforcement goals. For others, private lawsuits save cash-strapped government lawyers money, time, and resources by encouraging private parties to police misconduct on their own. Yet largely overlooked in the debate is enforcement inside agency adjudication, which often is depicted as just another form of public enforcement, only in a friendlier forum.

This Article challenges the prevailing conception of administrative enforcement. Based …

Introduction: Perceived Legitimacy And The State Judiciary, G. Alexander Nunn

Vanderbilt Law Review

By and large, judicial authority is a product of perceived validity. Judges lack an independent means of enforcement; they wield "no influence over either the sword or the purse," "neither force nor will." Rather, the judicial branch operates under the auspices of its legitimacy, "a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation's law means and to declare what it demands." When the public sees the judiciary as legitimate, it accepts and adheres to its rulings even when it may perceive certain decisions to be ideologically …

Contingent Fee Litigation In New York City, Eric Helland, Daniel Klerman, Brendan Dowling, Alexander Kappner

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since 1957, New York courts have required contingent fee lawyers to file "closing statements" that disclose settlement amounts, lawyers' fees, an accounting of expenses, and other information. This Article provides a preliminary analysis of these data for the period 2004- 2013. Among this Article's findings are that settlement rates in New York state courts are very high (84%) relative to previous studies; that very few cases are resolved by dispositive motions; that litigated cases and settled cases have almost exactly the same average recovery; that median litigation expenses, other than attorney's fees, are 3% of gross recovery; that claims are …

Improving Access To Justice In State Courts With Platform Technology, J.J. Prescott

Vanderbilt Law Review

Access to justice often equates to access to state courts, and for millions of Americans, using state courts to resolve their disputes-often with the government-is a real challenge. Reforms are regularly proposed in the hopes of improving the situation (e.g., better legal aid), but until recently a significant part of the problem has been structural. Using state courts today for all but the simplest of legal transactions entails at the very least traveling to a courthouse and meeting with a decision maker in person and in a one-on-one setting. Even minimally effective access, therefore, requires time, transportation, and very often …

Finding "Tapia Error": How Circuit Courts Have Misread 'Tapia V. United States' And Shortchanged The Penological Goals Of The Sentencing Reform Act, Matt J. Gornick

Vanderbilt Law Review

The American criminal justice system is called many things; "compassionate" is usually not one of them. Yet in the course of federal criminal proceedings, a sentencing hearing allows a judge to convey compassion toward a defendant, if only to say, "I'm sorry about your situation, but this is how I must apply the law." Likewise, a defendant might throw herself on the mercy of the court in hopes that the judge exercises discretion compassionately. Mitigating factors and downward departures suggest that judges are capable of doing so. But how does a sentencing judge show compassion, as opposed to simply feeling …

The Management Of Staff By Federal Court Of Appeals Judges, Mitu Gulati, Richard A. Posner

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal court of appeals judges have staffs consisting usually of a secretary and four law clerks; some judges have externs as well (law students working part time without pay). These staffs are essential, given judicial workloads and judges'limitations. Yet not much is known about how the judges manage their staffs. Each judge knows, of course, but judges rarely exchange information about staff management. Nor is there, to our knowledge, a literature that attempts to compare and evaluate the varieties of staff management techniques employed by federal court of appeals judges. This Essay aims to fill that gap. It is based …

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Vanderbilt Law Review

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution's text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …

Hazy Shades Of Winter: Resolving The Circuit Split Over Preliminary Injunctions, Rachel A. Weisshaar

Vanderbilt Law Review

The preliminary injunction is an extraordinarily powerful remedy. After only an initial hearing, a court can command the nonmovant to perform-or to refrain from performing-an action, enforceable by criminal contempt. This supposedly temporary form of relief is often, in practical terms, dispositive of the case because the preliminary injunction remains in effect unless and until a subsequent decision vacates it.

On The Efficient Deployment Of Rules And Standards To Define Federal Jurisdiction, Jonathan R. Nash

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress and the federal courts have traditionally adopted rules, as opposed to standards, to establish the boundaries of federal district court jurisdiction. More recently, the Supreme Court has strayed from this path in two areas: federal question jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction. Commentators have generally supported the use of discretion in determining federal question jurisdiction, but they have not recognized the relationship to the rule-standard distinction, nor more importantly have they considered the importance of where discretion enters the jurisdictional calculus. This Article argues that predictability and efficiency make it normatively desirable to have rules predominate jurisdictional boundaries and thus to …

The Monster Under The Bed: The Imaginary Circuit Split And The Nightmares Created In The Special Needs Doctrine's Application To Child Abuse, Adam Pie

Vanderbilt Law Review

Kessler Wilkerson was only two years old on the morning of October 16, 1976. At approximately 10:30 a.m., neighbors heard loud noises emanating from inside the Wilkerson trailer, alongside the sound of Kessler's crying and his father's screams. Two hours later, the now-quiet father delivered his two-year-old son to the emergency medical technicians. Despite their attempts to resuscitate the boy en route to the hospital, Kessler was pronounced dead on arrival. Discoveries in the hours and days that followed made Kessler's death even worse. Kessler's autopsy revealed "multiple bruises all over the child's body and.., significant bleeding and a deep …

"Objection: Your Honor Is Being Unreasonable!"--Law And Policy Opposing The Federal Sentencing Order Objection Requirement, Benjamin K. Raybin

Vanderbilt Law Review

"I think you ought to object, counselor," boomed the judge.' One could not help but to be taken aback: this instruction was not directed towards a pro se defendant, nor was it addressing an action by an opposing party. Instead, the judge had actually suggested-with a straight face and a hint of irony-that an attorney object to the sentence the judge had just imposed. Unlike the attorney, the judge had been following the development of a quirk in the circuit's sentencing law. In United States v. Vonner, the Sixth Circuit had recently held that a party must object to a …

Cooperative Interbranch Federalism: Certification Of State-Law Questions By Federal Agencies, Verity Winship

Vanderbilt Law Review

When an unresolved state-law question arises in federal court, the court may certify it to the relevant state court. The practice of certification from one court to another has been widely adopted and has been touted as "help[ing] build a cooperative judicial federalism." This Article proposes that states promote cooperative interbranch federalism by allowing federal agencies to certify unresolved state-law questions to state courts. It draws on Delaware's recent expansion of potential certifying entities to the Securities and Exchange Commission to argue that this innovation should be extended to other states and other federal agencies. Certification from federal agencies to …

The End Of Objector Blackmail?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law Review

For many years, courts and commentators have been concerned about a phenomenon in class action litigation referred to as objector "blackmail." The term "blackmail" is used figuratively rather than literally; so-called objector "blackmail" is simply a specific application of the general concern with legal regimes that permit one or more individuals to "hold out" and disrupt collective action. The holdout problem in class action litigation stems from the following series of events: When a class action is settled, class members who do not like the proposed settlement are permitted to file objections with the federal district court that must approve …

A Uniform System For The Enforceability Of Forum Selection Clauses In Federal Courts, Ryan T. Holt

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the early 1980s, a successful and ambitious Alabama businessman named Walter H. Stewart purchased a failing local copying business. Through the Stewart Organization, a corporation he controlled, Stewart sought to steer this troubled business to the realm of profitability. To do so, he entered into a dealership contract with Ricoh Corporation, a national manufacturer of copy machines that conducted its operations in New York. Unfortunately, their relationship soured. Stewart sued Ricoh in an Alabama federal district court, basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. Ricoh did not want to litigate in Alabama, and the original dealership contract seemed to provide …

Neglected Justices: Discounting For History, G. Edward White

Vanderbilt Law Review

The category of "neglected Justices" presupposes meaningful baselines for evaluating judicial reputations. A Justice cannot be deemed "neglected" except against the backdrop of some purported consensus about that Justice's reputation and the reputations of other Justices. Moreover, when the category of "neglected Justices" encompasses the performance of Justices who served in different time periods, it also presupposes that evaluative baselines for Justices can retain their integrity in the face of historical change and historical contingency.

This Article argues that when one discounts for history in the process of evaluating judicial reputations, the effects of history are sufficiently powerful to throw …

The Court, The Constitution, And The History Of Ideas, Scott D. Gerber

Vanderbilt Law Review

Several of the nation's most influential constitutional law scholars have been arguing for the better part of a decade that judicial review should be sharply limited, or eliminated altogether. The list includes such prominent thinkers as Professor Mark V. Tushnet of Harvard Law School, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, and Dean Larry D. Kramer of Stanford Law School. In place of the doctrine made famous by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, these leading voices of the legal academy call for "popular constitutionalism": a constitutional law that is defined outside of the …

Chief Judges: The Limits Of Attitudinal Theory And Possible Paradox Of Managerial Judging, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Vanderbilt Law Review

Grutter v. Bollinger is familiar to American lawyers, academics, and law students as the Supreme Court decision allowing the consideration of race in law school admissions.1 Grutter's procedural history is nearly as noteworthy as its substantive holding. The University of Michigan Law School, after losing in federal district court, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Three Democratic appointees were assigned to the panel: Judges Karen Nelson Moore and Martha Craig Daughtrey, who had heard an earlier interlocutory appeal, and Chief Judge Boyce Martin, who replaced the designated district judge from the earlier panel. The white …

State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the debate over how federal courts should interpret federal statutes, "faithful agent" theories stand pitted against "dynamic" theories of statutory interpretation. The following questions lie at the heart of the debate: Is the proper role of federal courts to strive to implement the commands of the legislature-in other words, to act as Congress's faithful agents? Or, is the proper role of federal courts to act as partners with Congress in the forward-looking making of federal law-in other words, to interpret statutes dynamically? Proponents of faithful agent theories include both "textualists" and "purposivists." Textualists have argued that federal courts best …

School Funding Litigation: Who's Winning The War?, John Dayton, Anne Dupre

Vanderbilt Law Review

Much is being made this year in education law circles and elsewhere about the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.' The Brown decision has certainly left an indelible mark on schools and other institutions in the United States. But last year the thirtieth anniversary of another major Supreme Court opinion passed largely without comment, despite the fact that it may be the most significant decision regarding public schools since Brown. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, concluded that education was not a fundamental right and that disparities in school funding …

Appellate Courts, Historical Facts, And The Civil-Criminal Distinction, Chad M. Oldfather

Vanderbilt Law Review

Among the pieties of our legal system is the notion that appellate courts do not engage in factual evaluation. Murky though the distinction between "fact" and "law" may be,' there is general agreement that somewhere along the fact-law spectrum lies a point beyond which appellate courts ought not venture. Past it exist questions of "historical fact," the "who, when, what, and where" series of questions that we have deemed only juries or trial judges to be capable of answering.

Just as well accepted is the reasoning behind this juridical line in the sand. Simply put, we believe that appellate courts …

Federal Court Authority To Regulate Lawyers: A Practice In Search Of A Theory Of A, Fred C. Zacharias, Bruce A. Green

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal courts regulate lawyers, including federal prosecutors, by enforcing various constitutional, statutory, and other legal constraints. Federal courts also adopt and enforce their own disciplinary rules pursuant to rule-making authority delegated by Congress. To what extent, however, do federal courts have independent power, in the absence of an explicit grant of authority, to regulate private lawyers and federal prosecutors? Although lower federal courts have long exercised power both to define and to sanction professional misconduct, the United States Supreme Court has never clarified the source and scope of this authority.

This issue is important for two reasons. First, most federal …

Contractual Choice Of Law And The Prudential Foundations Of Appellate Review, David Frisch

Vanderbilt Law Review

Within the past decade, professional organizations interested in making the law better suited to commercial transactions have begun to advocate the proposition that contracting parties should have almost unlimited power to choose the law to govern their relationship. The new choice-of-law framework resulting from these reform efforts will provide parties with an expanded menu of legal regimes from which to choose when drafting their contract and, in turn, will lead to a more frequent use of choice-of-law clauses. Indeed, some have even suggested that omitting such a clause may soon become malpractice for the commercial lawyer. Given both the trend …

Regulating Federal Prosecutors' Ethics, Bruce A. Green, Fred C. Zacharias

Vanderbilt Law Review

To what extent should federal prosecutors be regulated by states, by federal courts, or by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ) as a matter of self-regulation? This Article concludes that, subject to congressional oversight, federal courts should have the ultimate authority to regulate federal prosecutors. However, it also acknowledges the legitimacy of competing claims by the states and DOJ. Sometimes, federal courts should defer to state court regulation, given traditional state regulation of the practice of law and a host of practical considerations. At other times, federal prosecutors have compelling reasons to seek freedom from both state regulation and regulation …

The Competency Conundrum: Problems Courts Have Faced In Applying Different Standards For Competency To Be Executed, John L. Farringer, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Throughout Anglo-American legal history, there has been a general agreement, based on numerous rationales, that mentally incompetent inmates should not be executed for their crimes. The recurring problem, however, is how to define "incompetence" or "insanity." Legislatures and courts have sought to provide a common- sense definition, but in practice judges must confront highly technical terminology from the ever evolving field of psychiatry. Additionally, the definition must be flexible enough to apply to a variety of cases, while being universal enough to assure that all defendants are treated fairly and equally.

At hearings to determine a prisoner's competency to be …

Stalking Secret Law: What Predicts Publication In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Deborah J. Merritt, James J. Brudney

Vanderbilt Law Review

For more than a quarter century, the United States Courts of Appeals have maintained two bodies of law. One is published, widely disseminated, and fully precedential. The other, now encompassing nearly 80% of all dispositions on the merits,' is unpublished, erratically distributed, and rarely precedential. What distinguishes these two sets of cases? Is it possible to predict why judges publish opinions in some cases while resolving others through unpublished opinions, memoranda, or judgment orders?

Each court has formal rules governing the publication of opinions, but those standards fail to account for variations in publication. Despite substantial overlap among circuit rules, …

Drug Treatment Courts And Emergent Experimentalist Government, Michael C. Dorf, Charles F. Sabel

Vanderbilt Law Review

Despite the continuing "war on drugs," the last decade has witnessed the creation and nationwide spread of a remarkable set of institutions, drug treatment courts. In drug treatment court, a criminal defendant pleads guilty or otherwise accepts responsibility for a charged offense and accepts placement in a court-mandated program of drug treatment. The judge and court personnel closely monitor the defendant's performance in the program and the program's capacity to serve the mandated client. The federal government and national associations in turn monitor the local drug treatment courts and disseminate successful practices. The ensemble of institutions, monitoring, and pooling exemplifies …

The Demise Of Hypothetical Jurisdiction In The Federal Courts, Scott C. Idleman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Recent years have witnessed a modest but expanding Supreme Court effort to return the national government to its structural first principles.' Foremost among these is that federal power, although vast, is neither inherent nor unbounded, but consists only of that granted by the Constitution. In 1998, the Court remained steadfast to this precept, thwarting yet another attempt by a federal branch to exceed its limited and enumerated constitutional powers. This time, however, the perpetrator was none other than the Article IH judiciary itself. In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, the Court formally denounced the federal court practice …