Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility
Loyola University Chicago, School of Law
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mandatory Judging, Douglas R. Richmond
Mandatory Judging, Douglas R. Richmond
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
As a matter of judicial ethics, judges must disqualify themselves in matters in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. This key principle implicates two additional aspects of judicial ethics: the duty to sit and the rule of necessity. The duty to sit basically describes a judge’s duty to preside over a case unless disqualified as a matter of judicial ethics. Or, phrased another way, a judge must hear a case if her impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. Recognition of the duty to sit means that judges may not disqualify themselves based on their unease with cases, personal or professional …
Federal Election Commission V. Ted Cruz For Senate: How The Supreme Court Is Clearing The Way For Corruption In Politics, Sarah B. Gleason
Federal Election Commission V. Ted Cruz For Senate: How The Supreme Court Is Clearing The Way For Corruption In Politics, Sarah B. Gleason
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
Political speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Candidates for office have the constitutional right to raise funds to express their viewpoints, run campaigns, and associate with their supporters. However, leaving this flow of money unchecked creates a risk that candidates will sell the promise of political favors for increased monetary support from voters. Congress passed Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to prevent the risk of quid pro quo corruption, which is heightened when donors contribute money to candidates after the election for the sole purpose of retiring the candidates’ personal loans. Section 304 restricted …
On Second Thought: An Empirical Analysis Of When The Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide, Adam Feldman, Taylor R. Dalton
On Second Thought: An Empirical Analysis Of When The Supreme Court Decides Not To Decide, Adam Feldman, Taylor R. Dalton
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
Supreme Court Justices have a set of tools that allow them to avoid reaching the merits of a legal dispute even if the Court decides to hear the case by granting a petition for a writ of certiorari. Certain Supreme Court decisions relying on such tools are clear on their face—that is, case dimensions, delimiting the justiciability of a matter, are being evaluated because the Court wants to clarify the viability of the case. This Article looks at other rationales for the Court’s decisions not to rule on the merits after granting a case to the merits docket. In particular, …