Courts Commons^™

Supreme Court Fact-Finding And The Distortion Of American Democracy: Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action And Federal Rights Of The Committee On The Judiciary, Senate, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, First Session, Allison Orr Larsen

Congressional Testimony

No abstract provided.

Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

An important recent development in the field of statutory interpretation is the emergence of a movement calling for "methodological precedent"--a regime under which courts give precedential effect to interpretive methodology. In such a system, a case would establish not only what a particular statute means but could also establish binding rules of methodology--which tools are valid, in what order, and so on. The movement for methodological precedent has attracted sharp criticism on normative grounds. But both sides of the normative debate agree on the premise that the federal courts generally do not give precedential effect to interpretive methodology today.

This …

The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

"Reversed and remanded." Or "vacated and remanded." These familiar words, often found at the end of an appellate decision, emphasize that an appellate court's conclusion that the lower court erred generally does not end the litigation. The power to remand for further proceedings rather than wrap up a case is useful for appellate courts because they may lack the institutional competence to bring the case to a final resolution (as when new factual findings are necessary) or lack an interest in the fact-specific work of applying a newly announced legal standard to the particular circumstances at hand. The modern Supreme …

Protean Statutory Interpretation In The Courts Of Appeals, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

William & Mary Law Review

This Article is the first in-depth empirical and doctrinal analysis of differences in statutory interpretation between the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. It is also among the first to anticipate how the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach may shift with the passing of Justice Scalia.

We begin by identifying factors that may contribute to interpretive divergence between the two judicial levels, based on their different institutional structures and operational realities. In doing so, we discuss normative implications that may follow from the prospect of such interpretive divergence. We then examine how three circuit courts have used dictionaries and legislative …

Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message. …

Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014.1 Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly “divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact—such as whether …

The Trouble With Amicus Facts, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

The number of amicus curiae briefs filed at the Supreme Court is at an all-time high. Most observers, and even some of the Justices, believe that the best of these briefs are filed to supplement the Court’s understanding of facts. Supreme Court decisions quite often turn on generalized facts about the way the world works (Do violent video games harm children? Is a partial birth abortion ever medically necessary?). To answer these questions, the Justices are hungry for more information than the parties and the record can provide. The consensus is that amicus briefs helpfully add factual expertise to the …

How To Make Sense Of Supreme Court Standing Cases— – A Plea For The Right Kind Of Realism, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Does The Supreme Court Ignore Standing Problems To Reach The Merits? Evidence (Or Lack Thereof) From The Roberts Court, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Standing And The Role Of Federal Courts: Triple Error Decisions In Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa And City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons, Vicki C. Jackson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Governmental Sovereignty Actions, Ann Woolhandler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Allison Orr Larsen On Intensely Empirical Amicus Briefs And Amicus Opportunism At The Supreme Court, Allison Orr Larsen

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the role of lower-court precedent in the US Supreme Court’s decisions. The Supreme Court is rarely the first court to consider a legal question, and therefore the Court has the opportunity to be informed by and perhaps even persuaded by the views of the various lower courts that have previously addressed the issue. This Article considers whether the Court should give weight to lower-court precedent as a matter of normative theory and whether the Court in fact does so as a matter of practice. To answer the normative question, this Article analyzes a variety of potential reasons …

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Legal Scholarship Highlight: Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding, Allison Orr Larsen

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Explaining The Supreme Court's Shrinking Docket, Ryan J. Owens, David A. Simon

William & Mary Law Review

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has decided fewer cases than at any other time in its recent history. Scholars and practitioners alike have criticized the drop in the Court’s plenary docket. Some even believe that the Court has reneged on its duty to clarify and unify the law. A host of studies examine potential reasons for the Court’s change in docket size, but few rely on an empirical analysis of this change and no study examines the correlation between ideological homogeneity and docket size. In a comprehensive study, the authors analyze ideological and contextual factors to determine …

Split Definitive, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.

The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …

Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Oral Dissenting On The Supreme Court, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article we offer the first comprehensive evaluation of oral dissenting on the Supreme Court. We examine the practice in both historical and contemporary perspective, take stock of the emerging academic literature on the subject, and suggest a new framework for analysis of oral dissenting. Specifically, we put forth several claims. Contrary to the common assumption of scholarship and media coverage, oral dissents are nothing new. Oral dissenting has a long tradition, and its history provides valuable lessons for understanding the potential and limits of oral dissents today. Furthermore, not all oral dissents are alike. Dissenting Justices may have …

Law Versus Ideology: The Supreme Court And The Use Of Legislative History, David S. Law, David Zaring

William & Mary Law Review

Much of the social science literature on judicial behavior has focused on the impact of ideology on how judges vote. For the most part, however, legal scholars have been reluctant to embrace empirical scholarship that fails to address the impact of legal constraints and the means by which judges reason their way to particular outcomes. This Article attempts to integrate and address the concerns of both audiences by way of an empirical examination of the Supreme Court’s use of a particular interpretive technique— namely, the use of legislative history to determine the purpose and meaning of a statute. We analyzed …

Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Structural Case For Vertical Maximalism, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

Many prominent jurists and scholars, including those with outlooks as diverse as Chief Justice John Roberts and Cass Sunstein, have recently advocated a “minimalist” approach to opinion writing at the Supreme Court. They assert that the Court should issue narrow, fact-bound decisions that do not resolve much beyond the case before it. I argue that minimalism, as employed by the current Supreme Court, is in tension with the structure of the Constitution. Article III and the Supremacy Clause, along with historical evidence from the Founding Era, suggest that the Constitution creates a hierarchical judiciary and gives the Court a “supreme” …

What Kinds Of Statutory Restrictions Are Jurisdictional?, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made.” In this case, a district court approved a class action settlement that purported to resolve both registered and unregistered copyright claims. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether that registration requirement is a limitation on federal court subject-matter jurisdiction.

In Defense Of Ideology: A Principled Apporach To The Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Lori A. Ringhand

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this paper, Professor Ringhand offers a principled defense of an ideological approach to the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process. In constructing her argument, she does three things. First, she explores how the insights provided by recent empirical legal scholarship have created a need to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and, consequently, the process by which we select Supreme Court Justices. In doing so, Professor Ringhand explains how these insights have called into question much of our conventional constitutional narrative, and how this failure of the conventional narrative has in turn undermined traditional objections to an ideologically-based confirmation …

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Retaining Judicial Authority: A Preliminary Inquiry On The Dominion Of Judges, Larry Catá Backer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Why do the people and institutions of democratic states, and in particular those of the United States, obey judges ? This article examines the foundations of judicial authority in the United States. This authority is grounded on principles of dominance derived from the organization of institutional religion. The judge in Western states asserts authority on the same basis as the priest - but not the priest as conventionally understood. Rather, the authority of the judge in modern Western democratic states is better understood when viewed through the analytical lens of priestly function developed in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Focusing …