Law Commons^™

Advisory Opinions And The Problem Of Legal Authority, Christian R. Burset

Vanderbilt Law Review

The prohibition against advisory opinions is fundamental to our understanding of federal judicial power, but we have misunderstood its origins. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with a constitutional text or even a court case, but a letter in which the Jay Court rejected President Washington’s request for legal advice. Courts and scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the Jay Court’s behavior. But they all depict the earliest Justices as responding to uniquely American concerns about advisory opinions.

This Article offers a different explanation. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the anglophone world—not …

Measuring Semantic Relatedness: A Proposal For A New Textual Tool, Katherine A. Cohen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Judicial decisions, statutes, constitutions, sentencing guidelines, and ERISA-related documents have at least one thing in common: at a molecular level, the laws are all composed of words. The scientific study of linguistics, particularly the field of semantics, analyzes what words mean and how they are connected with each other. And yet, thus far, the legal field has taken little notice of academic and technological breakthroughs in the field of linguistic semantics. This Note seeks to highlight the potential utility of linguistic semantic tools in interpreting legal texts. Specifically, applying algorithms to a free online lexical database allows anyone with a …

Efficiency Run Amok: Challenging The Authority Of Magistrate Judges To Hear And Accept Felony Guilty Pleas, Tomi Mendel

Vanderbilt Law Review

In an ideal world, a trial would never be unreasonably delayed or cut short. Judges would never need to juggle multiple difficult trials or drown in administrative tasks that distract from the fair adjudication of cases, and lawyers and litigants could be reassured that each judgment was arrived at fairly and after proper reflection. Congress created the magistrate system in an attempt to move the federal judiciary closer to this ideal state of affairs.' The purpose of this Article I judicial system is to facilitate the resolution of less significant disputes and speed the administration of procedural tasks. When district …

Making Or Breaking Your Billion Dollar Case: U.S. Judicial Assistance To Private International Arbitration Under 28 U.S.C. 1732(A), Laura E. Malament

Vanderbilt Law Review

With the increasingly globalized economy, arbitration is becoming a popular mechanism for resolving disputes. The total value of international arbitration claims grew over one hundred percent in 2012, from $96 billion in 2011 to $206 billion in 2012. The principal users of international arbitration are corporations. In fact, for the shipping, energy, oil and gas, and insurance industries, international arbitration of multi-billion dollar disputes is the "default resolution mechanism." Across all industries, approximately ninety percent of international contracts include an arbitration clause. Importantly, seventy-four percent of international arbitration proceedings involve exclusively private parties-no state entities are parties to the dispute.

Standing On The Edge: Standing Doctrine And The Injury Requirement At The Borders Of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Mary A. Myers

Vanderbilt Law Review

The very first line of the Bill of Rights provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This line, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, was motivated by the history of religious persecution that drove thousands of adherents of minority faiths in Europe to the New World to seek refuge to practice their own faith, free from the compulsion of state-established religion. The Establishment Clause remains relevant today, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been active in hearing cases involving it. For purposes of determining standing-that is, whether an individual or organization meets certain constitutional …

Merging In The Shadow Of The Law: The Case For Consistent Judicial Efficiency Analysis, Jamie H. Moffitt

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article examines current judicial interpretation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act through the lens of negotiation theory. The research exposes a gap between how courts state they are analyzing efficiency claims in Section 7 Clayton Act enforcement actions and what they are actually doing. During periods of lax antitrust enforcement, this pattern is not readily visible, since almost all proposed merger and acquisition ("M&A") deals are approved. With a shift to more aggressive antitrust policy, however, it is critical that merger review include appropriate weighing of transaction-generated efficiencies-something missing from courts' current antitrust analysis. Although only a small …

The Quasi-Class Action Method Of Managing Multi-District Litigations: Problems And A Proposal, Charles Silver, Geoffrey P. Miller

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article uses three recent multi-district litigations ("MDLs") that produced massive settlements-Guidant ($240 million), Vioxx ($4.85 billion), and Zyprexa ($700 million)-to study the emerging quasi-class action approach to MDL management. This approach has four components: (1) judicial selection of lead attorneys, (2) judicial control of lead attorneys' compensation, (3) forced fee transfers from non-lead lawyers to cover lead attorneys' fees, and (4) judicial reduction of non-lead lawyers' fees to save claimants money. These procedures have serious downsides. They make lawyers financially dependent on judges and, therefore, loyal to judges rather than clients. They compromise judges' independence by involving them heavily …

Emotional Common Sense As Constitutional Law, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law Review

n Gonzales v. Carhart the Supreme Court invoked post- abortion regret to justify a ban on a particular abortion procedure. The Court was proudly folk-psychological, representing its observations about women's emotional experiences as "self-evident." That such observations could drive critical legal determinations was, apparently, even more self-evident, as it received no mention at all. Far from being sui generis, Carhart reflects a previously unidentified norm permeating constitutional jurisprudence: reliance on what this Article coins "emotional common sense." Emotional common sense is what one unreflectively thinks she knows about emotions. A species of common sense, it seems obvious and universal to …

Commandeering And Its Alternatives: A Federalism Perspective, Neil S. Siegel

Vanderbilt Law Review

This inquiry argues that current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence causes net harm to federalism values under certain circumstances. Specifically, New York v. United States and Printz v. United States protect state autonomy to some extent by requiring the federal government to internalize more of the costs of federal regulation before engaging in regulation. But anticommandeering doctrine harms state autonomy in situations where the presence of the rule triggers more preemption going forward. Preemption generally causes a greater compromise of federalism values than does commandeering by eroding state regulatory control.

While it is a context-sensitive empirical question whether specific applications of the …

How "Mead" Has Muddled Judicial Review Of Agency Action, Lisa S. Bressman

Vanderbilt Law Review

When the Supreme Court decided United States v. Mead Corp. four years ago, Justice Scalia predicted that judicial review of agency action would devolve into chaos. This Article puts that prediction to the test by examining the court of appeals decisions applying the decision. Justice Scalia actually understated the effect of Mead. This Article suggests a remedy for the mess.

In Mead, the Court held that an agency is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC only if Congress has delegated to that agency the authority to issue interpretations that carry the force of law, and the agency …

Damaged Goods: Why, In Light Of The Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Jurisprudence, Congress Must Amend The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Michael S. Vitale

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the 1980s, a wide range of courts and commentators have expressed concern over large punitive damages awards handed out by civil juries against a wide array of tortfeasors. A late 2001 study revealed that from 1985 to 2001, eight multi-billion dollar punitive damages awards were granted, with four of them being handed down in the years 1999 to 2001 alone.' Not surprisingly, all but one of these verdicts were handed down against large corporations. Among the current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens in particular has regularly noted the especially dangerous tendency the current punitive …

Canons Of Construction And The Elusive Quest For Neutral Reasoning, James J. Brudney, Corey Ditslear

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal statutes, like the lawmaking enterprise itself, are seldom models of efficiency. Whether through inevitable laxity or conscious choice, Congress when legislating leaves a fair number of gaps in the meaning of its complex regulatory schemes. In filling those gaps with case-specific interpretive responses, federal courts perform an important policymaking function.

Such policymaking has lately generated increased concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. Scholars using social science techniques have contributed to the image of courts as policymakers, by establishing that judges' political party affiliation and ideological orientation are at times significant predictors of voting behavior. Presidents and senators have …

Felony Jury Sentencing In Practice: A Three-State Study, Nancy J. King, Rosevelt L. Noble

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Court's recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), has prompted renewed interest in sentencing by jury in non-capital cases. Yet jury sentencing in felony cases remains one of the least understood procedures in contemporary American criminal justice. This Article looks beyond idealized visions of jury sentencing to examine for the first time how felony jury sentencing actually operates in three different states-Kentucky, Virginia, and Arkansas. Dozens of interviews with prosecutors, defenders, and judges, as well as an analysis of state sentencing data, reveal that this neglected corner of state criminal justice provides a unique window …

Federal Court Authority To Regulate Lawyers: A Practice In Search Of A Theory Of A, Fred C. Zacharias, Bruce A. Green

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal courts regulate lawyers, including federal prosecutors, by enforcing various constitutional, statutory, and other legal constraints. Federal courts also adopt and enforce their own disciplinary rules pursuant to rule-making authority delegated by Congress. To what extent, however, do federal courts have independent power, in the absence of an explicit grant of authority, to regulate private lawyers and federal prosecutors? Although lower federal courts have long exercised power both to define and to sanction professional misconduct, the United States Supreme Court has never clarified the source and scope of this authority.

This issue is important for two reasons. First, most federal …

Reciprocity, Utility, And The Law Of Aggression, Anita Bernstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

The themes of incursion and boundary-crossing unite disparate legal domains. Wherever human beings cross paths and share space, law or law-like traditions develop to regulate this terrain by distinguishing permitted from proscribed intrusion.' Crimes and torts, regulation and liability, claims and defenses to claims, private law and public law all use a variety of measures--punishments, administrative rules, equitable remedies, professional discipline, and informal or extralegal sanctions-to condemn undue aggression. Concern about aggression may be found in the law of every jurisdiction in the United States.

Within American law, an extra increment of aggression can amount to the only difference between …

Jural Districting: Selecting Impartial Juries Through Community Representation, Kim Forde-Mazrui

Vanderbilt Law Review

Court reformers continue to debate over efforts to select juries more diverse than are typically achieved through existing procedures. Controversial proposals advocate race-conscious methods for selecting diverse juries. Such efforts, however well-intentioned, face constitutional difficulties under the Equal Protection Clause, which appears to preclude any use of race in selecting juries. The challenge thus presented by the Court's equal protection jurisprudence is whether jury selection procedures can be designed that effectively enhance the representative character of juries without violating constitutional norms.

Professor Forde-Mazrui offers a novel insight for resolving this challenge. Analogizing juries to legislatures, he applies electoral districting principles …

Philip Sober Controlling Philip Drunk: "Buchanan V. Warley" In Historical Perspective, David E. Bernstein

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Buchanan v. Warley the Supreme Court found that a Louisville, Kentucky, residential segregation ordinance was unconstitutional because it interfered with the Fourteenth Amendment right to own and dispose of property and could not be justified as a police power measure.' The Buchanan decision came at a crucial juncture in the history of American race relations. Several cities in the southern and border states had recently passed residential segregation ordinances, and other cities were poised to follow suit if the Supreme Court ruled that such ordinances were constitutional. Several northern cities were considering adopting residential segregation laws as well,' and …

Formal Neutrality In The Warren And Rehnquist Courts: Illusions Of Similarity, Rebecca L. Brown

Vanderbilt Law Review

I read recently that if one compares the genetic structure of humans to that of dogs, one finds that ninety-six percent of the DNA in the two species is identical. That is a lot of common ground. Yet it may not be enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the sameness of the two creatures. Without suggesting that either of the two Courts discussed in her Article is a "dog," I do think it is fair to say that Professor Sherry has perhaps underestimated the relative importance of the divergent four percent.

Professor Sherry argues that in the defining areas of …

Judgment, Philippe Nonet

Vanderbilt Law Review

To judge, in Latin judicare, is to say the law, jus dicere, whence juris-dictio.

The above sentence is a possible answer to the question: what is judging? It spells out what the word "to judge" says, by recalling the history from which the word originates. Why would anyone ask this question? How helpful is such an answer?

Everyone knows what it is to judge. Only on the ground of such self-evidence could there be that unabating debate on the ' justification" of particular judgments, which is the day to day business of lawyering. Only because the question can be passed …

Understanding Federalism, Larry Kramer

Vanderbilt Law Review

It's necessary to begin with considering the sort of judicially enforced federalism rejected in Garcia and to consider why the Court rejected it. According to this view of federalism, the Constitution leaves certain substantive affairs exclusively to the states, and what matters is making sure that states can regulate these without federal interference. So long as this domain is protected, the political significance of states is assured and federalism is secure. The federal government can, if it chooses, take charge of all those matters as to which state and federal authority is concurrent-though Congress will find this harder to accomplish …

Rereading "The Federal Courts": Revising The Domain Of Federal Courts Jurisprudence At The End Of The Twentieth Century, Judith Resnik

Vanderbilt Law Review

A first enterprise in understanding and reframing Federal Courts jurisprudence is to locate, descriptively, "the Federal Courts." This activity-identifying the topic-may seem too obvious for comment, but I hope to show its utility. One must start with a bit of history, going back to the "beginning" of this body of jurisprudence. The relevant date is 1928, when Felix Frankfurter and James Landis, who began this conversation, published their book, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System. Three years later, in 1931, Felix Frankfurter, then joined by Wilber G. Katz (and later by Harry Shulman), …

The New Legal Hermeneutics, Francis J. Mootz, Iii

Vanderbilt Law Review

Incorporating the Continental philosophical tradition of hermeneutics into legal scholarship appears to be a project relevant only to a few jurisprudes locked away in the uppermost reaches of the ivory tower. Many scholars undoubtedly would argue that the tradition and focus of twentieth-century German philosophy is far removed from the troubling interpretive issues that arise in the American legal system, regardless of any interesting parallels or comparisons that might be drawn., From this perspective, the renewed attention to hermeneutical philosophy by legal scholars is viewed as just one of an increasing number of esoteric, intellectual cul-de-sacs that have diverged from …

On Telling Stories In School: A Reply To Farber And Sherry, Richard Delgado

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is difficult to evaluate someone who at the same time is evaluating you-putting you under the glass, dissecting your culture, laws, profession, and norms of political fairness.' The outsider's task is formidable enough: first seeing, then addressing, defects in the culture in which all of us, including the outsider, are immersed. But when one sets out, as Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry do in a recent article, to come to terms with outsider scholarship fairly and sympathetically, the task's difficulty increases by an order of magnitude.'

Empowered groups long ago established a host of stories, narratives, conventions, and understandings …

Priorities In Accounts: The Crazy Quilt Of Current Law And A Proposal For Reform, Dan T. Coenen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Moe Promisee has a right under a contract to receive monetary payments from Mae Promisor. Moe assigns his right first to Faye and then to Clay. Whom must Mae pay, Faye or Clay?

For more than a century, judges have struggled with successive assignments to different persons of the same contract right. These cases, which typically involve rights to monetary payments called "accounts," have generated subtleties of doctrine and disagreements among courts. Today, as a general rule, the Uniform Commercial Code controls these cases.' Ambiguities, however, lurk in the Code. Cryptic common-law doctrines also continue to govern many successive-assignment problems. …

The Canons Of Statutory Construction And Judicial Constraints: A Response To Macey And Miller, Lawrence C. Marshall

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professors Jonathan Macey and Geoffrey Miller claim to have set out to provide a positivist explanation for why judges ever invoke canons in the course of interpreting statutes.' In truth, though, their question is a far broader one. What they really seek to explain is why judges ever use any interpretive tools in the course of interpreting statutes. Why, Macey and Miller want to know, don't judges simply decide what result in the case will best promote a good outcome on the grounds of public policy, intrinsic fairness, economic efficiency or wealth maximization? This question is perplexing to Macey and …

The Jurisprudence Of Genetics, Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Dorothy Nelkin

Vanderbilt Law Review

In recent years, genetic research has ascended the list of national research priorities. From among the many weighty claims on the fisc, Congress has chosen to provide significant federal support for the Human Genome Initiative, a project aimed at mapping the complete set of genetic instructions that form the structure of inherited attributes. Geneticists anticipate that the project will disclose important new in- formation on human development and disease. Some go further. One influential scientist remarked that this work is "the ultimate answer to the commandment 'Know thyself.' ""

The decision to fund this Initiative, the largest biology project in …

Not So Cold An Eye: Richard Posner's Pragmatism, Jason S. Johnston

Vanderbilt Law Review

Over the past twenty odd years, Judge Richard Posner has established himself as one of the most creative and influential thinkers in the history of American law. His work divides into two parts: the prejudicial corpus, which is devoted almost entirely to the comprehensive economic analysis of law,' and the postjudicial corpus, which treats issues involving what may be called the theory of judging and courts--that is, the normative theory of how judges should decide cases and how courts should be organized. This division is rough and wavering, for Posner's work prior to his appointment to the federal bench often …

Structuring The Ethics Of Prosecutorial Trial Practice: Can Prosecutors Do Justice?, Fred C. Zacharias

Vanderbilt Law Review

Codes of professional responsibility take a very different approach to civil and criminal trials. In civil litigation, the codes presume that good outcomes result when lawyers represent clients aggressively. In criminal cases, the codes do not rely as fully on competitive lawyering. They treat prosecutors as advocates, but also as "ministers" having an ethical duty to "do justice."

Although the special prosecutorial duty is worded so vaguely that it obviously requires further explanation, the codes provide remarkably little guidance on its meaning. In effect, code drafters have delegated to prosecutors the task of resolving the special ethical issues prosecutors face …

The Role Of International Law As A Canon Of Domestic Statutory Construction, Ralph G. Steinhardt

Vanderbilt Law Review

From the beginning of our constitutional life, the Supreme Court has articulated principles that structure the juridical relationship between international law and domestic law. These principles purportedly offer rules of decision for resolving in domestic courts the potential in-consistencies between external and internal sources of law, and they do so with the surface simplicity of axioms. Treaties, for example, cannot trump constitutional norms.' Customary international law can provide a rule of decision at least in the absence of controlling legislative or executive acts. In the case of an irreconcilable conflict between a treaty and a statute, the latter-in-time prevails. When …

Rethinking The Judicial Reception Of Legislative Facts, Ann Woolhandler

Vanderbilt Law Review

In a recent article, Professor Peggy Davis called for reforms in judicial reception of legislative facts. Her suggestions, which follow an empirical analysis of the use of psychological parent theories in child custody disputes, echo similar proposals by Professor Kenneth Karst in 1960s and by Professors Arthur Miller and Jerome Barron in 1975 for judicial reception of legislative facts in constitutional cases.As originally defined by Kenneth Culp Davis, legislative facts are facts that "inform[] a court's legislative judgment on questions of law and policy." They contrast with adjudicative facts, which are facts about "what the parties did, what the circumstances …