Law Commons^™

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 Failure And Promise Of Equity In Domestic Abuse Cases, Jeffrey Baker

Jeffrey R Baker

In a generation, American law has experienced dramatic reforms in response to domestic abuse, including innovative criminal law enforcement schemes, liberalized divorce standards and civil protection orders. Feminist activism prompted and drove these reforms and related cultural understanding of domestic abuse, and they have yielded more effective legal options for victims of domestic violence. Virtually all of these reforms built upon existing structures to afford specific process and remedies to victims of domestic abuse, but why were innovations necessary if existing legal structures could have intervened on their own extant authority? Customary, common law equity might have intervened effectively to …

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 …

Tailoring Discovery: Using Nontranssubstantive Rules To Reduce Waste And Abuse, Joshua Koppel

Joshua M. Koppel

This article proposes reforming discovery in the federal courts through a switch to a system of nontranssubstantive discovery rules. Because the current discovery rules, like nearly all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are transsubstantive—meaning that the same rules apply in every type of case—they cannot be narrowly tailored to the requirements of any particular case. The creation of substance-specific (“nontranssubstantive”) rules holds promise for reducing costs by replacing broad rules with rules better fitted to particular types of litigation. Nontranssubstantive rules can be particularly effective in the area of discovery, where overbroad rules can be exploited by litigants …

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 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 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 Standing Doctrine's Dirty Little Secret, Evan Lee, Josephine Mason

Evan T. Lee

For at least forty years, the Supreme Court has insisted that the standing doctrine’s requirements of imminent injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are mandated by Article III of the Constitution. During that same time, however, the federal courts have consistently permitted Congress to relax or eliminate altogether the imminence, redressability, and even injury-in-fact requirements in most so-called “procedural rights cases”—cases in which there exists a statutory right to judicial review regardless of the plaintiff’s own personal interest in the matter. After asking whether the Necessary and Proper Clause could augment Article III to close up this gap, we conclude that the …

Renewing The Bayh-Dole Act As A Default Rule In The Wake Of Stanford V. Roche, Parker Tresemer

Parker Tresemer

Since its enactment in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act has incentivized university and private industry investment in new technologies by granting them exclusive patent rights to their inventors’ federally funded technologies. The Supreme Court’s holding in Stanford v. Roche, however, threatens to stall American innovation by undermining the Act’s intended structure for disposition of intellectual property rights. Congress enacted the Bayh-Dole Act to solve a specific problem: stagnating technological innovation in the decades after World War II. Universities and private companies are unwilling to commercialize basic federally funded technologies without exclusive rights to those technologies. The Congressional record surrounding the Bayh-Dole …

Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialism, Brady Violations, And The Prosecutorial Organizational Culture, Hadar Aviram

Hadar Aviram

Recently, in Connick v. Thompson (2011), the Supreme Court held that the failure of several prosecutors to disclose to the defense the blood type of the perpetrator, which did not match the defendant’s blood type, was not a systematic defect that required training of staff. According to the Court the prosecutors’ misconduct, and lack of training in Brady discovery duties, did not constitute “deliberate indifference” by the municipality, which would have entitled the exonerated defendant to relief under §1983. This Article criticizes the decision--and Brady policies in general—for their narrowness and excessive reliance on indications of intent or bad faith. …

Semiprocedural Judicial Review, Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

Dr. Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov

This Article explores a novel cross-national phenomenon: the emergence of a new judicial review model that merges procedural judicial review with substantive judicial review. While this model is not yet fully defined, it has already spurred much controversy. The Article explicates this emerging model, which it terms 'semiprocedural review,' and provides a theoretical exploration of both its justifications and its objectionable aspects. It concludes by evaluating semiprocedural review's overall justifiability and suggesting guiding principles for a more legitimate model of semiprocedural review. The Article pursues these goals through the unique perspective of juxtaposing semiprocedural review with 'pure procedural judicial review' …

The Immigrant And Miranda, Anjana Malhotra

Anjana Malhotra

The recent dramatic convergence of immigration and criminal law is transforming the immigration and criminal justice system. While scholars have begun to examine some of the structural implications of this convergence, this article breaks new ground by examining judicial responses, and specifically the sharply divergent approaches that federal appellate courts have used to determine whether Miranda warnings must be given to immigrants during custodial interrogations about their immigration status that have both criminal and civil implications.

The Persistent Problem Of Purposeful Availment, Henry S. Noyes

Henry S. Noyes

For the second time in 25 years, personal jurisdiction has perplexed the Supreme Court. The problem is purposeful availment. All of the Justices agree that specific jurisdiction does not exist without purposeful availment, but the Court could not cobble together a majority opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro stating what purposeful availment means or what it requires. This Article sets forth a simple — yet meaningful and necessary — solution. Purposeful availment is best understood by its negative. No court should find a non-resident defendant subject to personal jurisdiction for a contact with the forum state that the …

Moving Beyond Two-Person-Per-Bedroom: Revitalizing Application Of The Federal Fair Housing Act To Private Residential Occupancy Standards, Tim Iglesias

Tim Iglesias

Moving Beyond the Two-Person-Per-Bedroom Standard: Revitalizing Application of the Federal Fair Housing Act to Private Residential Occupancy Standards

Tim Iglesias

Abstract

New empirical evidence demonstrates that the common residential occupancy standard of two-persons-per-bedroom substantially limits the housing choices of many thousands of families, especially Latinos, Asians and extended families. The federal Fair Housing Act makes overly restrictive policies illegal, but the enforcement practices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have enabled the two-persons-per-bedroom standard to become de facto law. This article urges HUD to use its regulatory authority to remedy the situation and offers several solutions. …

Batson Revisited (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

Nancy S. Marder

The twenty-fifth anniversary of Batson v. Kentucky provides an important moment to reflect on Batson and to consider how this seminal case and its progeny have affected the use and abuse of peremptory challenges. I had initially welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to peremptory challenges in Batson back in 1986. Although Batson was a compromise—preserving peremptories while seeking to address discriminatory peremptories—it had the noble goal of trying to eliminate discrimination during jury selection. I also embraced its expansion over the years. The logic of Batson was inexorable: just as prosecutors should not be permitted to use peremptories to …

The Conundrum Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Nancy S. Marder

Nancy S. Marder