Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- SelectedWorks (10)
- BLR (9)
- American University Washington College of Law (4)
- Selected Works (4)
- University of San Diego (4)
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (3)
- William & Mary Law School (3)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- Montclair State University (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Miami Law School (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (1)
- Wayne State University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- ExpressO (9)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (4)
- University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series (4)
- Touro Law Review (3)
- Adam Lamparello (2)
-
- Faculty Publications (2)
- Tara L. Grove (2)
- Articles (1)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (1)
- Brian Farkas (1)
- David R. Cleveland (1)
- Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works (1)
- Eric H Schepard (1)
- Huhnkie Lee (1)
- Indiana Law Journal (1)
- Law Faculty Research Publications (1)
- Leon E Trakman Dean (1)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (1)
- Publications (1)
- Sarah L Brinton (1)
- Scholarly Works (1)
- Theodor JR Schilling (1)
- Thiago Luís Santos Sombra (1)
- Thomas S Glassman (1)
- Trevor J Calligan (1)
- University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (1)
- William & Mary Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 47
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Failed Idea Of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History, Susan D. Carle
The Failed Idea Of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History, Susan D. Carle
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This essay examines the intellectual history of the idea of judicial restraint, starting with the early debates among the US Constitution’s founding generation. In the late nineteenth century, law professor James Bradley Thayer championed the concept and passed it on to his students and others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter, who modified and applied it based on the jurisprudential preoccupations of a different era. In a masterful account, Brad Snyder examines Justice Frankfurter’s attempt to put the idea into practice. Although Frankfurter arguably made a mess of it, he passed the idea of …
Remembrance, Group Gripes, And Legal Frictions: Rule Of Law Or Awful Lore?, Aviam Soifer
Remembrance, Group Gripes, And Legal Frictions: Rule Of Law Or Awful Lore?, Aviam Soifer
Touro Law Review
The rise of groups that honor and seek to advance their particular imagined or real pasts has seemed increasingly dangerous in the years since Bob Cover’s death in 1986. This essay briefly examines the challenges such groups pose to Bob’s hope, and even his faith, that law and legal procedure could be bridges to more just worlds. It may not be ours to finish consideration of how to distinguish the Rule of Law from Awful Lore—both composed of exactly the same letters—but we should continue that task, with remembrance, even within our troubled world.
The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure
The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure
Scholarly Works
This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …
Reentry Court Judges: The Key To The Court, Christopher Salvatore, Venezia Michalsen, Caitlin Taylor
Reentry Court Judges: The Key To The Court, Christopher Salvatore, Venezia Michalsen, Caitlin Taylor
Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works
Over the last few decades, treatment-oriented court judges have moved away from being neutral arbitrators in an adversarial court process to treatment facilitators. In the problem-solving court model, judges are part of a more therapeutic treatment process with program participants and a courtroom workgroup. The shift from the use of the traditional criminal justice process toward the use of more treatment-oriented models for some populations highlights the need to systematically document key elements of treatment court models. In particular, it is important to clearly document the role of Reentry Court Judges because they are a key component of the Reentry …
The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove
The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove
Tara L. Grove
The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article III judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court’s size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these “self-evident truths” of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of “checking” …
The Power Of "So-Called Judges", Tara Leigh Grove
Stern Claims And Article Iii Adjudication - The Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best, Laura B. Bartell
Stern Claims And Article Iii Adjudication - The Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best, Laura B. Bartell
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley
Indiana Law Journal
This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.
Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …
The Power Of "So-Called Judges", Tara Leigh Grove
The Power Of "So-Called Judges", Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove
The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article III judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court’s size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these “self-evident truths” of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of “checking” …
Court Capture, Jonas Anderson
Court Capture, Jonas Anderson
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.
This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …
Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
Newsroom: Monestier On Web Jurisdiction 7/22/2016, Pat Murphy, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Newsroom: Monestier On Web Jurisdiction 7/22/2016, Pat Murphy, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Rights Without Remedies, Adam Lamparello
Rights Without Remedies, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
The Court should modify the standing doctrine in some contexts for the same reason that, in Shelby County, it invalidated two provisions of the Voting Rights Act: the legislature cannot and will not fix the problem. No legal doctrine should be applied without examining whether elected representatives are capable of remedying specific harms and accounting for the relative unfairness in democratic governance. When the traditional standing requirements are rigidly applied without considering these factors, the Court undermines the separation of powers and prevents sound judicial decision-making. In essence, rigid application of the standing doctrine sends a message to litigants …
Ice Skating Up Hill: Constitutional Challenges To Sec Administrative Proceedings, Thomas Glassman
Ice Skating Up Hill: Constitutional Challenges To Sec Administrative Proceedings, Thomas Glassman
Thomas S Glassman
Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges …
The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan
Trevor J Calligan
No abstract provided.
Beyond The Written Constitution: A Short Analysis Of Warren Court, Thiago Luis Santos Sombra
Beyond The Written Constitution: A Short Analysis Of Warren Court, Thiago Luis Santos Sombra
Thiago Luís Santos Sombra
This essay propose an analysis about how Warren Court became one of the most particular in American History by confronting Jim Crow law, especially by applying the Bill of Rights. In this essay, we propose an analysis of how complex the unwritten Constitution is. Cases like Brown vs. Board of Education will be analyzed from a different point of view to understand the methods of the Court.
A Call For An Overhaul Of The U.S. Federal Court System, Huhnkie Lee
A Call For An Overhaul Of The U.S. Federal Court System, Huhnkie Lee
Huhnkie Lee
No abstract provided.
Why Chief Justice Roy Moore And The Alabama Supreme Court Just Made The Best Case For Same-Sex Marriage, Adam Lamparello
Why Chief Justice Roy Moore And The Alabama Supreme Court Just Made The Best Case For Same-Sex Marriage, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary should remove Roy Moore from the Supreme Court of Alabama for a second and final time. Over ten years after being ousted from the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore is embroiled in yet another controversy that involves disregarding the federal courts and creating chaos in the legal system. In fact, Moore recently stated that he would ignore the Supremacy Clause and not respect a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating same-sex marriage bans. That statement brings back memories of Governor Wallace’s infamous stand at the schoolhouse door. At least Wallace had a change of …
Stiffing The Arbitrators: The Problem Of Nonpayment In Commercial Arbitration, Brian Farkas, Neal M. Eiseman
Stiffing The Arbitrators: The Problem Of Nonpayment In Commercial Arbitration, Brian Farkas, Neal M. Eiseman
Brian Farkas
Commercial arbitration is a creature of contract; the parties are there because they choose to be, either including an arbitration clause in their written agreement or, after a dispute developed, electing to avoid litigation all together. Arbitration also comes with an up-front cost non-existent in litigation: the arbitrators. Taxpayers pay for their state and federal judges, but the parties themselves pay for their arbitrators. But what happens if one party refuses (or is otherwise unable) to pay the arbitrator? If the arbitrator then refuses to proceed, as is likely, should the dispute revert to court, in derogation of the prior …
A Case For The Recognition Of A Concept Of Judge-Made International Law, Theodor Jr Schilling
A Case For The Recognition Of A Concept Of Judge-Made International Law, Theodor Jr Schilling
Theodor JR Schilling
Judge-made international law (JMIL) based on a law of reason exists as well in some municipal court decisions setting a precedent as in ones building upon such a precedent. Such court decisions rely on the faculty of judicial borderline institutions to decide against normally binding customary international law (CIL). This implies for the first group that they may positivise a law of reason, and for the second group they may defer to thus positivised laws of reason, both irrespective of contrary CIL. Norms of JMIL and of CIL are determined according to different secondary rules. Therefore, court decisions which are …
The Battle For The Soul Of International Shoe, Eric H. Schepard
The Battle For The Soul Of International Shoe, Eric H. Schepard
Eric H Schepard
In 2011, Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro repeatedly cited International Shoe v. Washington, a 1945 decision that transformed the law of personal jurisdiction. Kennedy believed that International Shoe broadly supported his position that a state may hear a suit arising from a within-state workplace injury to its citizen only if the foreign (out-of-state) corporate defendant specifically markets its products to that state. This article reexamines the jurisprudence of International Shoe’s author, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, to argue that Kennedy hijacked International Shoe’s half-buried legacy of judicial restraint. Scholars have suggested that Stone hoped …
Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton
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.
Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor
Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor
Leon E Trakman Dean
Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and …
Universal Civil Jurisdiction And The Extraterritorial Reach Of The Alien Tort Statute: The Case Of Kiobel Before The United States Supreme Court, Paul Barker
University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review
No abstract provided.
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland
David R. Cleveland
While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …
'The Law Of The Circuit' Revisited: What Role For Majority Rule?, Arthur D. Hellman
'The Law Of The Circuit' Revisited: What Role For Majority Rule?, Arthur D. Hellman
Articles
In April 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that the full 15-judge court would convene to hear the challenge to President Trump’s executive order “to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” This was a significant departure from the usual practice in the federal courts of appeals. Initial en banc hearing is extremely unusual, and rehearing en banc after a panel decision is almost as rare.
Ordinarily, two features define the ordinary course of adjudication in the federal courts of appeals. First, cases are heard and decided by panels of three …
A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp
A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp
ExpressO
The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.
Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah J. Challener
Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah J. Challener
ExpressO
When a federal court grants an abstention-based dismissal in a diversity case, the court abdicates its strict duty to exercise its jurisdiction where that jurisdiction has been properly invoked. Thus, a federal court may not dismiss a case on abstention grounds unless it concludes that "exceptional circumstances" require the dismissal. When a federal court grants an abstention-based stay in a diversity case, however, the court does not violate its jurisdictional duty. According to the Supreme Court, an abstention-based stay is merely a postponement of the exercise of jurisdiction. Although the Court has characterized an abstention-based stay as a delay rather …
A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch
A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch
ExpressO
This Article argues that the use of structural injunction remedies by South African courts is appropriate, and, in light of demonstrated government inaction, often necessary in order to give meaning to the protection of socio-economic rights, which is mandated by their Constitution. The Article draws upon numerous United States judicial decisions where structural injunctions have been successfully implemented to address systemic institutional inaction and violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the South African government has not acted to effectively give meaning to the socio-economic rights which were broadly declared …