Law Commons^™

Liars And Terrorists And Judges, Oh My: Moral Panic And The Symbolic Politics Of Appellate Review In Asylum Cases, Eric M. Fink

Eric M Fink

As part of the REAL ID Act, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict judicial review of adverse credibility determinations by immigration judges. The change came in the wake of controversy of judicial reversals of adverse credibility determinations that the reviewing courts saw as inappropriately speculative and lacking in evidentiary support. Critics, including some appellate judges, have in turn alleged that the appellate courts have been insufficiently deferential to the factual determinations of Immigration Judges (IJs) and the BIA.

This paper examines the argument offered in support of limiting judicial review in this area, and provides an empirical …

The Myth Of The Generalist Judge: An Empirical Analysis Of Opinion Specialization In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Edward K. Cheng

Edward Cheng

Despite the frequent rhetoric celebrating the generalist judge, do judges really believe in the generalist ideal? This Article empirically tests this question by examining opinion assignments in the federal courts of appeals from 1995-2005. It reveals that opinion specialization is a regular part of circuit court practice, and that a significant number of judges indeed specialize in specific subject areas. The Article then assesses the desirability of opinion specialization. Far from being a mere loophole, opinion specialization turns out to be an important development in judicial practice that promises to increase judicial expertise without incurring many of the costs commonly …

Book Review: A History Of The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This is a book review of Jeffrey Brandon Morris's "Establishing Justice in Middle America: A History of the Eighth Circuit" (U. Minn. Press 2008).

Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow

Donald J. Kochan

Conflicts created by concurrences and pluralities in court decisions create confusion in law and lower court interpretation. Rule of law values require that individuals be able to identify controlling legal principles. That task is complicated when pluralities and concurrences contribute to the vagueness or uncertainty that leaves us wondering what the controlling rule is or attempting to predict what it will evolve to become. The rule of law is at least handicapped when continuity or confidence or confusion infuse our understanding of the applicable rules. This Article uses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States to …

Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophony Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Matthew J. Parlow, Donald J. Kochan

Matthew Parlow

Selection To The Kansas Supreme Court, Stephen Ware

Stephen Ware

Kansas is the only state in the union that gives the members of its bar majority control over the selection of state supreme court justices. The bar consequently may have more control over the judiciary in Kansas than in any other state. This process for selecting justices to the Kansas Supreme Court is described by the organized bar as a “merit,” rather than political, process. Other observers, however, emphasize that the process has a political side as well. This paper surveys debate about possible reforms to the Kansas Supreme Court selection process. These reforms would reduce the amount of control …

A Slapp In The Face: Why Principles Of Federalism Suggest That Federal District Courts Should Stop Turning The Other Cheek, Lisa Litwiller

Lisa Litwiller

This article examines the nexus between state and federal law where SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP statutory schemes are litigated by a federal district court sitting in diversity. In particular, this article will explore the standard the federal court should apply when an Anti-SLAPP early motion to dismiss is brought by SLAPP defendant and the plaintiff challenges dismissal on the basis of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to the regime established by the Supreme Court in Hannah v. Plumer.

"The Public's Right Of Access To 'Some Kind Of Hearing' - Creating Policies That Protect The Right To Observe Agency Hearings", Chris Mcneil

Christopher B. McNeil, J.D., Ph.D.

As administrative agencies take on greater responsibilities and increasing caseloads, the tendency may be to shield their operations from the public. This article examines the competing constitutional premises supporting access to agency hearings on one hand, and due process considerations on the other; and provides a model for use by agencies seeking to control public access to agency adjudications.

The Cy Pres Problem And The Role Of Damages In Tort Law, Goutam U. Jois

Goutam U Jois

Class action litigation presents a common problem that has received little discussion in the academic literature. In almost every case, the plaintiff class’s recovery is not fully distributed. For example, all possible plaintiffs may not come forward with their claims, the plaintiffs may not be ascertainable, or claims may not be timely submitted. Administrators are regularly posed with the problem of what to do with these residual funds. Currently, courts are free to do virtually anything with such funds. The system is ad hoc, unpredictable, and unguided by any normative principle. In these cases, I propose that the funds should …