Law Commons^™

Workshop On Judging: Does Gender Make A Difference, Herma Hill Kay, Geraldine Sparrow

Herma Hill Kay

No abstract provided.

Recusal, Government Ethics, And Superannuated Constitutional Theory, Keith Swisher

Keith Swisher

Something good and something bad happened recently in government and judicial ethics; no one has truly noticed yet for some reason. The Supreme Court all but banned First Amendment analysis as applied to recusal laws, both legislative and judicial. That, actually, is the good thing, or so I argue. The bad thing is that the Court, in doing so, used a geriatric approach to constitutional theory. The approach is unduly reverent of anything “old;” and old is not limited to the practices of the Founding Fathers, but also includes “traditional” practices within some undefined range. But what is old is …

Bypassing Civil Gideon: A Legislative Proposal To Address The Rising Costs And Unmet Legal Needs Of Unrepresented Immigrants, Erin B. Corcoran

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Statutory Interpretation Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making , R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Problems Of Perception In The European Court Of Human Rights: A Matter Of Evidence?, Anne Richardson Oakes

Anne Richardson Oakes

The “doctrine of appearances” is now an important element of the jurisprudence of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court derives support for its interpretations from the traditional precept of the common law that “justice must be seen to be done.” However, the formulations of the European Court are idiosyncratic and apparently driven by an asserted perception of an increased public sensitivity in this area. This paper examines these formulations and considers the extent to which judicial principles of procedural fairness require an empirical connection.

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.

Judicial Creativity And Constraint Of Legal Rules: Dueling Cannons Of International Law, Vitalius Tumonis

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

According to the traditional theory of judicial decision-making, legal rules constrain judicial creativity because they entail an objectively correct legal answer. Therefore, even if judges want to engage in judicial legislation they are nonetheless constrained by legal rules. This article argues that this understanding is flawed. First, the selection effect ensures that most cases that reach international courts revolve around uncertain legal rules. Second, various cannons of construction will usually allow judges to ascertain several equally plausible legal rules; judges are likely to select those rules which favor their preferred outcome of the case; and their preferred outcome will be …

Evaluating Contracts For Customized Litigation By The Norms Underlying Civil Procedure, Colter Paulson

Colter Paulson

Recent scholarship on the potential for contractual modifications of litigation procedure focuses on contractual theories of enforcement, with constraints supplied by public policy. But this approach ignores the fact that such contracts purport to bind a third-party, the court, that did not agree to change its procedures. Nor can contractual theories of enforcement fully account for the societal and institutional interests in existing procedures. These problems are resolved, however, when contractual procedures are seen primarily as procedures, rather than as contracts, and are evaluated in light of the norms underlying civil procedure.

These norms are found both in the explicit …

Proxy Sovereignty And The Problem Of Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The U.S. Constitution creates a three-branch federal government that acts on behalf of the sovereign people. Each constitutional branch—Congress, the executive, and the judiciary—is constrained to exercise only the powers and act only in the roles assigned it by the sovereign people via the Constitution. Despite this tripartite, proxy-sovereign nature of the U.S. national government, current federal sovereign immunity jurisprudence affords Congress the exclusive right to act as sovereign to waive immunity. This Article argues that the Constitution more faithfully supports another configuration of the waiver power. To do so, this Article introduces the proxy-sovereign framework, which assumes that (1) …

The Constitutional Procedural Principle: A Normative Morphology For Gauging Threats To Judicial Independence, Tara Price

Tara Price

For more than two hundred years, judicial review has served as the foundation of the American judicial branch. And yet, more than two centuries later, scholars and political figures continue to debate its proper place in American government. Recently, Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich waded into this debate, calling for members of Congress and the President to take stronger actions to check and balance what he termed “judicial supremacy.” Cries for a weakened judicial branch and insistence on the importance of reining in activist judges are becoming commonplace throughout American history.

As Gingrich and many before him have realized, the President …

When The Tenth Justice Doesn’T Bark: The Unspoken Freedom Of Health Holding In Nfib V. Sebelius, Abigail Moncrieff

Abigail R. Moncrieff

There was an argument that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli could have made—but didn’t—in defending Obamacare’s individual mandate against constitutional attack. That argument would have highlighted the role of comprehensive health insurance in steering individuals’ health care savings and consumption decisions. Because consumer-directed health care, which reaches its apex when individuals self insure, suffers from several known market failures and because comprehensive health insurance policies play an unusually aggressive regulatory role in attempting to correct those failures, the individual mandate could be seen as an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies in the health care market that arise from individual decisions to …

What's On First?: Organizing The Casebook And Molding The Mind, Donald G. Gifford, Joseph L. Kroart Iii, Brian Jones, Cheryl Cortemeglia

Donald G Gifford

This study empirically tests the proposition that law students adopt different conceptions of the judge’s role in adjudication based on whether they first study intentional torts, negligence, or strict liability. The authors conducted an anonymous survey of more than 450 students enrolled in eight law schools at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the first semester of law school. The students were prompted to indicate to what extent they believed the judge’s role to be one of rule application and, conversely, to what extent it was one of considering social, economic, and ideological factors. The survey found that while all …

The Racial Injustice Of The War On Drugs: The Sentencing Laws And Police Practices Responsible For The Injustice And A Policy Prescription For A New Way Forward, Brad R. Schlesinger

Brad R Schlesinger

The War on Drugs is a discriminatory policy that results in blacks being overrepresented as those arrested and imprisoned for drug crimes – creating incalculable damages to black communities and families. The culprits are sentencing laws and law enforcement tactics that cannot be considered race-neutral as these policies overwhelmingly affect blacks. While attempts to ameliorate these disparities through sentencing reform has had mild successes, these prescriptions are limited, failing to address the underlying problem: the way the drug war is policed. I contend that legalizing and regulating drugs is necessary to reverse the injustice and blatant discrimination of the drug …

The Racial Injustice Of The War On Drugs: The Sentencing Laws And Police Practices Responsible For The Injustice And A Policy Prescription For A New Way Forward, Brad R. Schlesinger

Brad R Schlesinger

The War on Drugs is a discriminatory policy that results in blacks being overrepresented as those arrested and imprisoned for drug crimes – creating incalculable damages to black communities and families. The culprits are sentencing laws and law enforcement tactics that cannot be considered race-neutral as these policies overwhelmingly affect blacks. While attempts to ameliorate these disparities through sentencing reform has had mild successes, these prescriptions are limited, failing to address the underlying problem: the way the drug war is policed. I contend that legalizing and regulating drugs is necessary to reverse the injustice and blatant discrimination of the drug …

The Racial Injustice Of The War On Drugs: The Sentencing Laws And Police Practices Responsible For The Injustice And A Policy Prescription For A New Way Forward, Brad R. Schlesinger

Brad R Schlesinger

The War on Drugs is a discriminatory policy that results in blacks being overrepresented as those arrested and imprisoned for drug crimes – creating incalculable damages to black communities and families. The culprits are sentencing laws and law enforcement tactics that cannot be considered race-neutral as these policies overwhelmingly affect blacks. While attempts to ameliorate these disparities through sentencing reform has had mild successes, these prescriptions are limited, failing to address the underlying problem: the way the drug war is policed. I contend that legalizing and regulating drugs is necessary to reverse the injustice and blatant discrimination of the drug …

The Lawlessness Of Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate as a valid enactment under the Taxing Clause. Numerous commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his courage and pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. He contends that the opinion is, in two senses, fundamentally lawless. First, the …

What Do Kim Kardashian And Lance Armstrong Have In Common?: Celebrity Complaints In The Classroom, Amy K. Langenfeld

Amy K Langenfeld

Every day brings a report of a celebrity suing or being sued. The complaints initiating these suits are available online within hours. Regardless of the merits or outcomes of these complaints by or against celebrities, celebrity complaints are a rich source of samples for the law school classroom. As supplements to course materials in civil procedure or legal writing, celebrity complaints are likely to generate discussion for several reasons. First, they show a range of strategies and persuasive writing techniques. Second, they engage students because they are real world documents, and because they have a pop culture setting. Third, they …

Judicial Efficacy – Providing Justice In State Courts In The Midst Of A Budget Crisis, Mark Gould

Mark Gould

No abstract provided.

The Reality Of Eu-Conformity Review In France, Juscelino F. Colares

College of Law - Faculty Scholarship

French High Courts embraced review of national legislation for conformity with EU law in different stages and following distinct approaches to EU law supremacy. This article tests whether adherence to different views on EU law supremacy has resulted in different levels of EU directive enforcement by the French High Courts. After introducing the complex French systems of statutory, treaty and constitutional review, this study explains how EU-conformity review emerged among these systems and provides an empirical analysis refuting the anecdotal view that different EU supremacy theories produce substantial differences in conformity adjudication outcomes. These Courts' uniformly high rates of EU …

A Response To Harel And Porat: On The Inadmissibility Of The Aggregated Probabilities Principle, Doron Menashe Dr.

Mahdi Naamnee

This article is a response to an article by Alon Harel and Ariel Porat, recently published in the Michigan Law Review. In the article, the authors argue that, under certain conditions, courts should be permitted to convict a defendant in an unspecified offense. This possibility is meant to address situations in which there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an offense, even though the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed any specific offense of which he was accused. The authors term this new decision principle as the Aggregated Probabilities Principle – APP.

In …

Municipal Ethics Remain A Hot Topic In Litigation: A 1999 Survey Of Issues In Ethics For Municipal Lawyers, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Show Me The Money: Mcclurg V. Deaton And The Introduction Of A Defense As To Damages Only For Default Judgments In South Carolina, Jessica L. O'Neil

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Building The Federal Judiciary (Literally And Legally): The Monuments Of Chief Justices Taft, Warren And Rehnquist, Judith Resnik

Indiana Law Journal

The “federal courts” took on their now familiar contours over the course of the twentieth century. Three chief justices—William Howard Taft, Earl Warren, and William Rehnquist—played pivotal roles in shaping the institutional, jurisprudential, and physical premises. Taft is well known for promoting a building to house the U.S. Supreme Court and for launching the administrative infrastructure that came to govern the federal courts. Earl Warren’s name has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Court offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of …

Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues Within European Judicial Networks, Monica Claes, Maartje De Visser

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The article examines the modality of judicial dialogue and the practical workings of less institutionalized judicial networks in Europe. Topics discussed include the definition of constitutional pluralism, network, and dialogue, the participation of judges in judicial networks, and the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the national courts.

Blinded By A Bright Line: An Analysis Of The Fairfield Formula And Its Impact On Existing Laws And Legislative Procedure, Thomas A. Limehouse Jr.

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Thoughts On Misjudging Misjudging, Stephen Subrin

Stephen N. Subrin

No abstract provided.

Thoughts On Misjudging Misjudging, Stephen Subrin

Stephen N. Subrin

No abstract provided.

A Modest Memoir: Justice Stevens’S Supreme Court Life, Laura K. Ray

Laura K. Ray

No abstract provided.

Pluralism And The Environment Revisted: The Role Of Comment Agencies In Nepa Litigation, Michael Blumm

Michael Blumm

The National Environmental Policy Act suffers from a declining reputation due to high expectations and misunderstood implementation. The U.S. Supreme Court has disappointed environmental advocates by repeatedly ruling that NEPA does not impose substantive obligations to protect the environment that are judicially enforceable. As a result, some critics have characterized NEPA as a mere paperwork statute, imposing only bureaucratic red tape. Nevertheless, some courts have read NEPA to require close judicial scrutiny of federal agency actions with significant environmental consequences and have enjoined agency proposals that do not publicly disclose those consequences. The problem is that the level of judicial …

Why Harlan Fiske Stone (Also) Matters, Eric H. Schepard

Eric H Schepard

Harlan Fiske Stone has been largely overlooked in the recent legal literature even though his legacy should influence how we resolve contemporary legal problems. This article examines Stone’s archived correspondence, his speeches and opinions, and numerous secondary sources to demonstrate why he is more important now than at any time since his death in 1946. As Attorney General from 1924-25, Stone’s decision to prohibit the Bureau of Investigation (BI, today’s FBI) from spying on domestic radicals established a framework that should guide the troublesome relationship between domestic intelligence and law enforcement that reemerged after September 11, 2001. As an Associate …