Law Commons^™

Art Actually! The Courts And The Imposition Of Taste, Marett Leiboff

Marett Leiboff

How do we read art, at least in law? The traditional approach of the courts has been to disavow, or at least avoid any discussion on matters of aesthetics or connoisseurship, or more accurately assert such a disavowal. Because whether the courts acknowledge it or not, they actively judge art, even when they say they don't. Judging art by judges, as we will see, is not a particularly edifying spectacle, but is it better for the courts to avoid judging art? In this article, I will explore what happens when the courts grapple with the problem of judging art, but …

Police Can Stop You For Having A License Plate Bracket On Your Car, Beau James Brock, Rikki Weger

Beau James Brock

The Fourth Amendment must be protected from police excesses. Now, law enforcement is relying upon the most hyper-technical of violations to stop a vehicle. Both attorneys and judges must guard against the temptation that the ends will justify the means, only to find out later we sold out our freedom to the golden calf of drug interdiction.

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.

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 …

Essay: Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

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 …

Aedpa's Wrecks: Comity, Finality, And Federalism, Lee B. Kovarsky

Lee Kovarsky

Over the last decade, federal courts have internalized the idea that interpretations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should disfavor habeas relief. This Article explores the strange legislative history surrounding AEDPA's passage and the resulting problems in using 'comity, finality, and federalism' to express this interpretive mood. It demonstrates that such a simplistic reading of habeas reform is deeply misguided. Through the use of public choice and related models, the Article explores the roots of this interpretive problem. It ultimately rejects any attempt to characterize AEDPA by reference to legislative purpose.

Viewing The "Same Case Or Controversy" Of Supplemental Jurisdiction Through The Lens Of The "Common Nucleus Of Operative Fact" Of Pendent Jurisdiction, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Douglas D. McFarland

When a federal court has jurisdiction of a claim, supplemental jurisdiction of § 1367(a) allows the court to adjudicate all parts “of the same case or controversy under Article III.” This article argues that the best way to interpret that phrase is by examining the meaning of “common nucleus of operative fact,” the test for its ancestor pendent jurisdiction. Through that lens, “same case or controversy” means the broad grouping of facts, without regard to legal theories or categories, that a lay person would expect to be tried together. And in limning the boundaries of that grouping of facts, the …

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

Laura K. Ray

No abstract provided.

Hiding Behind The Cloak Of Invisibility: The Supreme Court And Per Curiam Opinions, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Rules, Resources, And Relationships: Contextual Constraints On Prosecutorial Decision Making, Don Stemen

Don Stemen

In the American criminal justice system, prosecuting attorneys arguably enjoy broader discretion than any other system actor. Research, however, is beginning to show that prosecutorial discretion is not nearly as unconstrained as initially thought. Relying on in-depth interviews and surveys of prosecutors in two large urban/suburban county prosecutors’ offices, this article examines prosecutors’ decision making processes, exploring internal and external, formal and informal mechanisms that regulate prosecutors’ decision making. We find that prosecutorial discretion is constrained by several factors. Internal rules or policies within the prosecutor’s office often determine whether a case is accepted or rejected for prosecution, what the …

Rule 23(B) After Wal-Mart: (Re) Considering A Unitary Standard, Mollie A. Murphy

Mollie A Murphy

Abstract

For more than forty years, the requirements for class certification have been specified in Rule 23 (a) and (b). Under these provisions, a class may be certified if all the requirements of subsection (a) are satisfied, and if the class fits within one of the categories set forth in subsection (b). The court's selection of category, in turn, determines what protections beyond adequate representation must be provided absentee class members. By articulating classifications that emphasized function over formalism, the drafters of the 1966 amendments sought to bring needed clarity and certainty to the certification process.

The hoped-for certainty, however, …

Federal Common Law And The Courts’ Regulation Of Pre-Litigation Preservation, Joshua Koppel

Joshua M. Koppel

With the proliferation in recent years of electronically stored information and the skyrocketing cost of retaining large amounts of data, issues of preservation have played an increasing role in litigation. Companies and individuals that anticipate that they will be involved in litigation in the future may be obligated to preserve relevant evidence even before litigation is initiated. Because litigation has not yet commenced, they cannot seek clarification regarding their obligations from a court or negotiate them with an adverse party. Statutory or common law preservation duties play a large role in guiding potential litigants in this area.

The federal courts …

Rules, Resources, And Relationships: Contextual Constraints On Prosecutorial Decision Making, Don Stemen, Bruce Frederick

Don Stemen

In the American criminal justice system, prosecuting attorneys arguably enjoy broader discretion than any other system actor. Research, however, is beginning to show that prosecutorial discretion is not nearly as unconstrained as initially thought. Relying on in-depth interviews and surveys of prosecutors in two large urban/suburban county prosecutors’ offices, this article examines prosecutors’ decision making processes, exploring internal and external, formal and informal mechanisms that regulate prosecutors’ decision making. We find that prosecutorial discretion is constrained by several factors. Internal rules or policies within the prosecutor’s office often determine whether a case is accepted or rejected for prosecution, what the …

The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …

The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …

The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …

The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …

The Exceptions Clause As A Structural Safeguard, Tara Grove

Tara L. Grove

Scholars have long viewed the Exceptions Clause of Article III as a serious threat to the Supreme Court’s central constitutional function: establishing definitive and uniform rules of federal law. In this Article, I argue that the Clause has been fundamentally misunderstood. The Exceptions Clause, as employed by Congress, serves primarily to facilitate, not to undermine, the Supreme Court’s constitutional role. Drawing on recent social science research, I assert that Congress has a strong incentive to use its control over federal jurisdiction to promote the Court’s role in settling disputed federal questions. Notably, this argument has considerable historical support. When the …

The Emerging Restrictions Of Sovereign Immunity: Premptory Norms Of International Law, The Un Charter, And The Application Of Modern Communications Theory, Winston P. Nagan

Winston P Nagan

The article is titled The Emerging Restrictions on Sovereign Immunity: Peremptory Norms of International Law, the UN Charter, and the Application of Modern Communications Theory. The article provides a fresh re-examination of the conceptual foundations of the sovereign immunity doctrine in the light of the changing character of sovereignty itself. This is done in the context of the changing expectations in international law generated by the UN Charter, and the development of human rights and humanitarian law. The article applies the innovative communications theories generated by the New Haven School to provide a more realistic and relevant approach to the …

Why Denials Of Summary Judgment Should Be Appealable, Bradley S. Shannon

Bradley Scott Shannon