Law Commons^™

Reverse Advisory Opinions, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg

Ronald H. Rosenberg

No abstract provided.

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Katherine Mims Crocker

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

Against Methodological Stare Decisis, Evan J. Criddle, Glen Staszewski

Evan J. Criddle

Should federal courts give stare decisis effect to statutory interpretation methodology? Although a growing number of legal scholars have answered this question in the affirmative, this Essay makes the case against methodological stare decisis. Drawing on recent empirical studies of Congress’s expectations regarding statutory interpretation, we show that existing knowledge of Congress’s expectations is insufficient to settle on one consistent approach to statutory interpretation. Moreover, Congress has almost certainly changed its expectations over time, and this raises serious problems for methodological stare decisis from the perspective of faithful-agency theories. We argue further that many theories and doctrines of statutory interpretation …

Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts’ approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence — the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts’ reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the fivefactor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts’ reinterpretation of the framework …

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Invisible Adjudication In The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Michael Kagan, Rebecca Gill, Fatma Marouf

Fatma Marouf

Non-precedent decisions are the norm in federal appellate courts, and are seen by judges as a practical necessity given the size of their dockets. Yet the system has always been plagued by doubts. If only some decisions are designated to be precedents, questions arise about whether courts might be acting arbitrarily in other cases. Such doubts have been overcome in part because nominally unpublished decisions are available through standard legal research databases. This creates the appearance of transparency, mitigating concerns that courts may be acting arbitrarily. But what if this appearance is an illusion? This Article reports empirical data drawn …

Defending The Nlrb: Improving The Agency's Success In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Jeffrey M. Hirsch

Jeffrey M. Hirsch

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Nonprecedential Opinion, Elizabeth Beske

Elizabeth Earle Beske

Statutes In Common Law Courts, Jeffrey Pojanowski

Jeffrey A. Pojanowski

The Supreme Court teaches that federal courts, unlike their counterparts in the states, are not general common law courts. Nevertheless, a perennial point of contention among federal law scholars is whether and how a court’s common law powers affect its treatment of statutes. Textualists point to federal courts’ lack of common law powers to reject purposivist statutory interpretation. Critics of textualism challenge this characterization of federal courts’ powers, leveraging a more robust notion of the judicial power to support purposivist or dynamic interpretation. This disagreement has become more important in recent years with the emergence of a refreshing movement in …

Fletcherian Standing, Merits, And Spokeo V. Robins, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This essay offers an exercise in wishful jurisdictional and procedural thinking. As part of a Supreme Court Roundtable on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it argues for William Fletcher's conception of standing as an inquiry into the substantive merits of a claim and of whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. This approach is especially necessary in statutory cases; along with its constitutional power to create new rights, duties, and remedies, Congress should have a free hand in deciding who and how those rights and duties should be enforced. Spokeo, which involves a claim for damages for publication of …

The Gravitational Force Of Federal Law, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Federal Courts As Weapons Of Foreign Policy: The Case Of The Helms-Burton Act, John Yoo

John C Yoo

No abstract provided.

"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Bernadette Bollas Genetin

This Article focuses on pending amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope-of-discovery provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Rule 26(b)(1) would authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” if that information is also “proportional to the needs of the case,” based on enumerated proportionality factors – “the importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the …

A Proposal For Improving Argument Before The United States Supreme Court, Louis Sirico

Louis J. Sirico Jr.

With rare exceptions, the U.S. Supreme Court allots thirty minutes to each side for oral argument. A review of transcripts and recordings of oral arguments confirms that the Court poses questions and makes comments with remarkable frequency. When students and lay people listen to the recordings, they may remark on the constant interruptions and view the Justices as rude interrogators. With the many questions that the Justices have and the limited time available, the advocates have little opportunity to present their arguments fully. The Justices may interrupt counsel with questions concerning the law or the relevant facts of a case. …

Atlantic Marine And The Future Of Party Preference, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In Atlantic Marine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prelitigation forum-selection agreement does not make an otherwise proper venue improper. Prominent civil procedure scholars have questioned the wisdom and accuracy of this holding. This paper is derived from my presentation at the symposium on Atlantic Marine held at UC Hastings College of the Law on September 19, 2014. In this paper, I defend Atlantic Marine as essentially correct based on what I have elsewhere called the principle of party subordinance. I go further, however, to argue that the principle underlying Atlantic Marine could affect the widespread private market for …

Pleading And The Litigation Marketplace, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In this essay derived from a lecture delivered at the University of Genoa in 2013, I situate the New Pleading regime of Twombly and Iqbal in the American litigation marketplace. Courts and parties are undoubtedly affected by New Pleading. But, as rational actors, they also are responsive to it. Their responsive behaviors both mitigate the expected effects of New Pleading and cause unintended effects. Assessing New Pleading requires understanding and consideration of these market forces and reactive implications.

Literary Justice, Scott Dodson, Ami Dodson

Scott Dodson

This microsymposium essay empirically (and somewhat humorously) measures which current U.S. Supreme Court justice is the most literate, as determined by citations to great works of literary fiction. It further identifies the justices' favorite literary authors. Consistent with the mission of the Green Bag, the essay is meant to be lighthearted and entertaining, but it also recognizes the underlying importance of the intersection of legal opinion-writing and literary fiction.

Opening An Oral Argument Before The Supreme Court: The Decline Of Narrative's Role, Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Louis J. Sirico Jr.

Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks, Michael Coenen

Michael Coenen

When a member of the Supreme Court is unable to hear a case, the remaining Justices will occasionally split 4-4 on the case's merits. Normally, such a tie vote translates into a summary affirmance of the lower court ruling, but it remains an open question how the Court should deal with deadlock in the original jurisdiction context, where by definition there is no lower court ruling to affirm. The Court has from its inception lacked a clear and principled approach to original jurisdiction deadlocks (OJDs), and as a result it has dealt awkwardly with those it has confronted in the …

Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger

Scott Dodson

This essay, adapted from the video presentation available at http://vimeo.com/89845875, graphically depicts the genealogy and evolution of federal civil pleading standards in U.S. Supreme Court opinions over time. We show that the standard narrative—of a decline in pleading liberality from Conley to Twombly to Iqbal—is complicated by both progenitors and progeny. We therefore offer a fuller picture of the doctrine of Rule 8 pleading that ought to be of use to judges and practitioners in federal court. We also hope to introduce a new visual format for academic scholarship that capitalizes on the virtues of narration, graphics, mapping, online accessibility, …

Party Subordinance In Federal Litigation, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

American civil litigation in federal courts operates under a presumption of party dominance. Parties choose the lawsuit structure, factual predicates, and legal arguments, and the court accepts these choices. Further, parties enter ubiquitous ex ante agreements that purport to alter the law governing their dispute, along with a chorus of calls for even more party-driven customization of litigation. The assumption behind this model of party dominance is that parties substantially control both the law that will govern their dispute and the judges that oversee it. This Article challenges that assumption by offering a reoriented model of party subordinance. Under my …

Last Words: A Survey And Analysis Of Federal Judges' Views On Allocution In Sentencing, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Federalism Doctrines And Abortion Cases: A Response To Professor Fallon, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

This Essay is a response to Professor Richard Fallon's article, If Roe Were Overruled: Abortion and the Constitution in a Post-Roe World. In that article, Professor Fallon argues that if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade, courts might well remain in the abortion-umpiring business. This Essay proposes a refinement on that analysis. It argues that in a post-Roe world courts would not necessarily subject questions involving abortion to the same kind of constitutional analysis in which the Court has engaged in Roe and its progeny, that is, balancing a state's interest in protecting life against a pregnant …

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael S. Green

Michael S. Green

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal
court interpreting state law must decide as the state’s supreme
court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting
the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must
decide as the sister state’s supreme court would.

Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is
already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given
state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And
state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming
that …

Forms For Use In Federal Courts, Robert C. Brown

Dr Robert Brown

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.

Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson