Law Commons^™

Labor Disputes In Professional Sports: How Federal Judges Referee Antitrust Lawsuits-- False Starts And Technical Fouls, Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Using a database of 83 published court opinions from 1970-2011, I show that players have utilized conflicting federal laws to improve their labor market mobility. They formed unions under the National Labor Relations Act, and bargained collectively with leagues. Often, however, they lacked bargaining power to modify the draft or reserve clause, which bound them to a team. Players sued, therefore, under the Sherman Act to challenge these practices as restraints of trade. Thus, players have used a dual engagement strategy of bargaining with leagues under the NLRA while holding identical negotiations under the threat of Sherman Act treble damages. …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Incommensurability, Practices And Points Of View: Revitalizing H.La. Hart’S Practice Theory Of Rules, Eric J. Miller

Eric J. Miller

The standard reading of H.L.A. Hart’s practice theory of rules is that it failed to provide a sufficient normative basis for a theory of law. That standard reading rests upon a significant misunderstanding: that Hart has an exclusionary reason approach to law. Instead, Hart understands law to be a social practice, one capable of generating valid norms that not only block the operation of moral norms, but which are wholesale incommensurable with them.

Wholesale incommensurability entails that law, as a form of social practice, constitutes a discrete normative system in which the truth-conditions of legal propositions are distinct from the …

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Abigail R. Moncrieff

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into the structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism is surprising, however, given that judges frequently choose indirect methods, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation, for protecting substantive constitutional values. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another recently theorized as …

"Not That Smart": Sonia Sotomayor And The Construction Of Merit, Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr., Mitu G. Gulati Mr., Daniel L. Chen Dr.

Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr.

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such …

New Evidence On Appeal, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Appellate review is limited, almost by definition, to consideration of the factual record as established in the trial court. Adhering to this record review principle, appellate courts generally reject out of hand any effort to supplement the appellate record with evidence that was not considered by the court below.

There are, however, exceptions to this traditional principle. Whether presented through amicus briefs, social-science-laden “Brandeis Briefs,” petitions for discretionary review, or other mechanisms for supplementing the record, appellate courts often consider and rely upon new evidence. The literature regarding both the traditional rule and the exceptions is limited, and neither courts …

The Racial Metamorphosis Of Justice Kennedy, With An Eye Towards The End Of The Second Reconstruction, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

This Essay examines the recent turn in Justice Kennedy’s race jurisprudence. The shift is palpable, from a narrow and uncompromising approach to the use of race by state actors to a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the role that race plays in American society. This is no small change, best explained by Justice Kennedy’s status on the Court as a “super median.” This is a position of power and influence, as any majority coalition must count on Justice Kennedy’s vote; but more importantly, it is also a position of true independence. Justice Kennedy entertains his idiosyncratic and very personal …

The Second-Class Class Action: How Courts Thwart Wage Rights By Misapplying Class Action Rules, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Scott A Moss

Courts apply to wage rights cases an aggressive scrutiny that not only disadvantages low-wage workers, but is fundamentally incorrect on the law. Rule 23 class actions automatically cover all potential members if the court grants plaintiffs’ class certification motion. But for certain employment rights cases – mainly wage claims but also age discrimination and gender equal pay claims – 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows not class actions but “collective actions” covering just those opting in affirmatively. Courts in collective actions assume a gatekeeper role as they do in Rule 23 class action, disallowing many actions by requiring a certification motion …

Come A Little Closer So That I Can See You My Pretty: The Use And Limits Of Fiction Point Of View Techniques In Appellate Briefs, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Come a Little Closer so That I Can See You my Pretty, The Use and Limits of Fiction Point of Techniques in Appellate Briefs began when I was struggling to explain point of view to my students in Appellate Advocacy. They represented a fictional criminal defendant whose bag was searched when the police were executing a premises warrant at his friend’s house. My students scrunched up their faces when I tried to explain why they should not start their facts with the friend’s crime that spurred the search. The crime happened first in time, so to them it came first. …

Demystifying The Determination Of Foreign Law In U.S. Courts: Opening The Door To A Greater Global Understanding, Matthew J. Wilson

Matthew J. Wilson

With globalization and the proliferation of international commercial interaction, U.S. courts commonly encounter issues governed by the laws of other sovereigns. These encounters arise by virtue of private agreements or choice-of-law rules covering contractual relationships, cross-border conduct, tortuous acts, employment matters, intellectual property rights, and various other legal foundations. Because the substantive law applied in an international lawsuit can be outcome-determinative, it is important to accurately ascertain and determine the relevant law. In fact, the proper functioning of private international law in a domestic system is based on the appropriate application of law.

U.S. federal and state courts are presumed …

Fantasyscotus: Crowdsourcing A Prediction Market For The Supreme Court, Josh Blackman, Adam Aft, Corey Carpenter

Josh Blackman

Every year the Supreme Court of the United States captivates the minds and curiosity of millions of Americans - yet the inner-workings of the Court are not fully transparent. The Court, without explanation, only decides the cases it wishes. They deliberate and assign authorship in private. The Justices hear oral arguments, and without notice, issue an opinion months later. They sometimes offer enigmatic clues during oral arguments through their questions. Between arguments and the day the Court issues an opinion, the outcome of a case is essentially a mystery. Sometimes the outcome falls along predictable lines; other times the outcome …

“No Fishing Poles Allowed At The Office,” And Other Suggestions On How To Limit “Fishing Expeditions” To An Outdoor Weekend Activity And Away From The Realm Of E-Discovery, Joanna K. Slusarz

Joanna Slusarz

Early settlement is usually encouraged by the courts and welcomed by most parties involved in a lawsuit. However, it may not always be the most favorable result. This idiosyncrasy arises most when the costs of continuing litigation and adjudication on the merits outweigh those of early settlement. On the other hand, early settlement raises the risk of “encourag[ing] additional, low merit cases that might not otherwise have been filed had the company chosen to litigate existing lawsuits.”

The phenomenon of electronic discovery (“e-discovery”) has exponentially increased the occurrence of the latter result. As a result, defendants, particularly large corporations with …

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanagh

Edward D. Cavanagh

Abstract

In May 2007, the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and sent shockwaves throughout the federal civil justice system. Twombly has triggered an avalanche of motions to dismiss, which, in turn, have generated thousands of judicial opinions, some of them knee-jerk reactions, other more thoughtful. It also has generated a plethora of academic commentary, much of it shrill and negative.

As the fourth anniversary of the Twombly decision approaches, the time for venting is over. Twombly is the law of the land; and the Supreme Court, having affirmed that decision in Iqbal, is not likely to shift …

Marshall And O'Connor: Categorical First Justices And Their Impact On Federal Indian Law, Richard L. Barnes

richard l barnes

Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed. As firsts in their category their historical role is assured, but their legacy is broader. This Article examines one piece of their legacies: Is it plausible to find some of their character as ‘Firsts’ in their opinions for the Court in Indian cases? Specifically can we find a legacy of categorical pioneering in the Justices’ treatment of American Indians as another category of people underrepresented on the Court?

My working hypothesis was that the sympathy some might expect from …

Case-By-Case Adjudication And The Path Of The Law, Anthony Niblett

Anthony Niblett

How can a centrist president or governor best influence law through the appointment of judges? Imagine that there are two sitting judges and one of the positions becomes vacant. The other, veteran judge is on the extreme right, from the perspective of the executive, and the executive prefers centrist outcomes. Should the executive appoint a centrist or, instead, appoint a left-wing extremist who might offset the sitting, right-wing judge? Conventional wisdom holds that judges counteract, or balance, one another; that is, a left-wing appointment carries the best hope offsetting the existing, right-wing judge. Following this intuition, a moderate appointment would …

The Fortas Film Festival, Brian L. Frye

Brian L Frye

The story of Jack Smith’s film Flaming Creatures and the “Fortas Film Festival” illustrates the dialectic of obscenity. The obscenity doctrine expresses the conventional wisdom that the First Amendment actually protects art, and protects pornography only by extension. But Flaming Creatures and the Fortas Film Festival suggest that obscenity is dialectical. The obscenity doctrine provides the thesis: art protects pornography, by justifying the protection of sexual expression. Flaming Creatures and the Fortas Film Festival provide the antithesis: pornography protects art, by normalizing sexual expression. The history of obscenity law provides the synthesis: art and pornography protect each other. In other …

Rules, Standards, And The Attorney-Client Privilege: When Is The Privilege At-Issue In The Discovery Rule And Other Contexts?, Kenneth J. Duvall

Kenneth J Duvall

Striking the right balance between a robust attorney-client privilege and a judicial system that maximizes access to the best evidence has always been difficult. In recent decades, the privilege battles have in large part been waged over one particular exception to the privilege: the “at-issue” carve-out. Under this exception, the holders of the privilege waive it when they place otherwise privileged communications at issue in the litigation not through outright consent but instead through their conduct. The troubling question has therefore been: what actions suffice to place communications at issue? Privilege defenders consider confidential communications to be at issue only …

Risk In Sentencing: Constitutionally-Suspect Variables And Evidence-Based Sentencing, James C. Oleson

James C Oleson

It is said that imposing punishment is one of the most difficult things a judge will ever do. Implicit in the imposition of punishment are a number of competing philosophical considerations: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, among others. In many jurisdictions, judges enjoy broad authority over sentencing decisions; in others, judicial discretion is limited by mandatory-minimum penalties or sentencing guidelines. A new, actuarial approach to sentencing (“evidence-based sentencing”) focuses upon the reduction of recidivism, using data to maximize the utilitarian ends of sentencing. Research suggests that statistical assessments outperform clinical judgment of even trained experts. But which variables should judges …

The Role Of Individual Substantive Rights In A Constitutional Technocracy, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Abigail R. Moncrieff

This article presents a novel theory of substantive constitutional rights and of the role that they play in an increasingly technocratic legal world. The central descriptive assertion is that substantive rights serve as presumptions in favor of private ordering, which protect a limited set of regulatory regimes from technocratic tinkering, and that the characteristic that defines the set of protected regimes is a high degree of economic and moral uncertainty. Decisions to engage in speech, religion, association, reproduction, and parenting—the decisions that receive substantive constitutional protection under modern doctrine—are decisions that are of unusually uncertain individual and social value. The …

Unconscious Bias In Legal Interpretation, Anup Malani, Ward Farnsowrth, Dustin Guzior

Anup Malani

What role do policy preferences play when a judge or any other reader decides what a statute or other legal text means? Most judges think of themselves as doing law, not politics. Yet the observable decisions that judges make often follow patterns that are hard to explain by anything other than policy preferences. Indeed, if one presses the implications of the data too hard, it is likely to be heard as an accusation of bad faith—a claim that the judge or other decision-maker isn’t really earnest in trying to separate preference from judgment. This does not advance the discussion, and …

The Psychology Of Procedural Justice In The Federal Courts, Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff

Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff

This interdisciplinary article examines our federal court system from the perspective of the psychology of procedural justice – that is, subjective perceptions about the fairness of process. The article considers some of the central features of civil litigation from the standpoint of the psychology of procedural justice, highlighting some of the aspects of the system that are likely to increase perceptions of fair process, and exploring, conversely, rules and practices that may decrease those perceptions. The article focuses on procedural justice in two contexts: basic rules and practices of civil procedure and more complex federal court doctrines that involve the …