Law Commons^™

When The Commerce Clause Goes International: A Proposed Legal Framework For The Foreign Commerce Clause, Naomi Harlin Goodno

Florida Law Review

The world is becoming a smaller place. Technology and the Internet have made global travel and communication easier, quicker, and more common. Novel legal issues arise every day to deal with this modern interconnected world. How does the law address these new problems?

Congress is allowed “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The scope of Congress’s power to regulate commerce “among the several States” (the “Interstate Commerce Clause”) has long been debated. In the modern world of global interaction, Congress’s power to regulate commerce “with foreign Nations” (the “Foreign Commerce …

Regulation By Amicus:The Department Of Labor’S Policy Making In The Courts, Deborah Thompson Eisenberg

Florida Law Review

This Article examines the practice of “regulation by amicus”: that is, an agency’s attempt to mold statutory interpretation and establish policy by filing “friend of the court” briefs in private litigation. Since the United States Supreme Court recognized agency amicus interpretations as a source of controlling law entitled to deference in Auer v. Robbins, agencies have used amicus curiae briefs—in strategic and at times aggressive ways—to advance the political agenda of the President in the courts.

Using the lens of the U.S. Department of Labor’s amicus activity in wage and hour cases, this Article explores the tension between the …

Brown V. Plata: Renewing The Call To End Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Steven Nauman

Florida Law Review

After more than twenty years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court finally determined whether California’s overcrowded prison system created a constitutional violation in Brown v. Plata. With prisons and jails across the country operating at well over 100% capacity, the Court concluded what advocates had been screaming for over a decade: prison overcrowding cannot be tolerated, and the only remedy is to reduce prison populations. What the Court failed to resolve, however, was what the primary cause of prison overcrowding is and how states and the federal government are supposed to comply with capacity expectations amid concerns for …

Bringing Our Children Back From The Land Of Nod: Why The Eighth Amendment Forbids Condemning Juveniles To Die In Prison For Accessorial Felony Murder, Mariko K. Shitama

Florida Law Review

Over 2,589 individuals sit in prison, where they have been condemned to die for crimes they committed before their eighteenth birthday. At least a quarter of these individuals received this sentence for accessorial felony murder, or a crime in which they did not kill or intend to kill the victim. Beginning with Roper v. Simmons in 2005 and continuing with Graham v. Florida in 2010, recent Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has recognized that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults in ways that limit the constitutionality of imposing adult punishment on them. In June 2012, the Supreme Court held that sentencing juveniles …

The Dimensions Of Judicial Impartiality, Charles Gardner Geyh

Florida Law Review

Scholars have traditionally analyzed judicial impartiality piecemeal, in disconnected debates on discrete topics. As a consequence, current understandings of judicial impartiality are balkanized and muddled. This Article seeks to reconceptualize judicial impartiality comprehensively, across contexts. In an era when “we are all legal realists now,” perfect impartiality—the complete absence of bias or prejudice—is at most an ideal; “impartial enough” has, of necessity, become the realistic goal. Understanding when imperfectly impartial is nonetheless impartial enough is aided by conceptualizing judicial impartiality in three distinct dimensions: a procedural dimension, in which impartiality affords parties a fair hearing; a political dimension, in which …

Judicial Logrolling, F. Andrew Hessick, Jathan P. Mclaughlin

Florida Law Review

In the federal judicial system, multiple judges hear cases on appeal. Although assigning cases to multiple judges provides a number of benefits, it also generates the potential for conflict. Because each judge has his own set of preferences and values, judges on appellate panels often disagree with each other. Judges currently resolve these disagreements by filing separate opinions or drafting compromise opinions. A different way to resolve these disagreements is to allow vote trading across cases. Scholars and judges have condemned this practice, however, and judges have insisted that it does not occur.

This Article argues that the blanket condemnation …