Courts Commons^™

Judicial Selection That Fails The Separation Of Powers, Stephen Ware

Catholic University Law Review

Executive power should be constrained by checks and balances. The United States’ long and strong tradition of concerns about executive power, and its complementary tradition of Madisonian checks and balances on and to the executive, include the selection of supreme court justices. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the constitution of any state places solely in the executive the power to appoint a justice to begin a new term on the (federal or state) supreme court. However, several states fail to constrain gubernatorial power in selecting justices to finish a term already started by another justice and these interim appointments are …

State Spoliation Claims In Federal District Courts, Jeffrey A. Parness

Catholic University Law Review

The increasing amounts of electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to civil litigation, and the ease of their loss, caused federal lawmakers explicitly to address the possible consequences of certain pre-suit or post-suit ESI losses. These lawmakers acted in both 2006 and 2015 through Federal Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(e). But they acted only on certain ESI. Their actions have prompted increasing attention to the significant risks of pre-suit and post-suit losses of all ESI, and of non-ESI, otherwise discoverable in civil actions. In addition, their actions have spurred increasing attention to the availability of substantive law claims involving spoliation of information …

But We Didn’T Agree To That!: Why Class Proceedings Should Not Be Implied From Silent Or Ambiguous Arbitration Clauses After Lamps Plus, Inc. V. Varela, Andrea Demelo Laprade

Catholic University Law Review

The application of class arbitrability when a contract is silent on the matter remains a mystery. The Supreme Court has not clarified its stance on class arbitrability and preemptive effects of the Federal Arbitration Act on state law when applied to determine if class arbitrability is available. The purpose of this Paper is to address how the Lamps Plus v. Varela decision created more confusion about the question of class arbitrability. It argues that the failure to address the particulars of the availability of class arbitration will perpetuate litigation on this issue. This Paper suggests that the FAA’s purpose supports …

The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu

Catholic University Law Review

For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.

After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …

Shame, Angry Judges, And The Social Media Effect, Maxine D. Goodman

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.