Judges Commons^™

The Majoritarian Rehnquist Court?, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …

Congress And The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Is statutory interpretation an activity that all courts should perform the same way? Courts and commentators implicitly so conclude. I believe that conclusion is wrong. Statutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.

I identify three kinds of institutional differences between courts that bear on which interpretive methods are appropriate: (1) the court’s place in the hierarchical structure of appellate review, (2) the court’s technical capacity and resources, and (3) the court’s democratic pedigree, particularly as reflected …

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

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

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 …

Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

Judicial Fact-Finding In An Age Of Rapid Change: Creative Reforms From Abroad, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.

Politics, Identity, And Class Certification On The U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang

Sean Farhang

This article draws on novel data and presents the results of the first empirical analysis of how potentially salient characteristics of Court of Appeals judges influence precedential lawmaking on class certification under Rule 23. We find that the partisan composition of the panel (measured by the party of the appointing president) has a very strong association with certification outcomes, with all-Democratic panels having more than double the certification rate of all-Republican panels in precedential cases. We also find that the presence of one African American on a panel, and the presence of two females (but not one), is associated with …

To Compare Or Not To Compare? Reading Justice Breyer, Russell A. Miller

Russell A. Miller

Justice Breyer's new book The Court and the World presents a number of productive challenges. First, it provides an opportunity to reflect generally on extra-judicial scholarly activities. Second, it is a major and important - but also troubling - contribution to debates about comparative law broadly, and the opening of domestic constitutional regimes to external law and legal phenomena more specifically. I begin by suggesting a critique of the first of these points. These are merely some thoughts on the implications of extra-judicial scholarship. The greater portion of this essay, however, is devoted to a reading of Justice Breyer's book, …

Backlash Against International Courts In West, East And Southern Africa: Causes And Consequences, Karen J. Alter, James T. Gathii, Laurence R. Helfer

James T Gathii

This paper discusses three credible attempts by African governments to restrict the jurisdiction of three similarly-situated sub-regional courts in response to politically controversial rulings. In West Africa, when the ECOWAS Court upheld allegations of torture by opposition journalists in the Gambia, that country’s political leaders sought to restrict the Court’s power to review human rights complaints. The other member states ultimately defeated the Gambia’s proposal. In East Africa, Kenya failed in its efforts to eliminate the EACJ and to remove some of its judges after a decision challenging an election to a sub-regional legislature. However, the member states agreed to …

The Color Of Perspective: Affirmative Action And The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence, Cecil J. Hunt Ii

Cecil J. Hunt II

This Article discusses the Supreme Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in deciding racially-inflected claims of constitutional shelter. It argues that the Court's use of this rhetoric reveals its adoption of a distinctly White-centered perspective, representing a one-sided view of racial reality that distorts the Court's ability to accurately appreciate the true nature of racial reality in contemporary America. This Article examines the Court's habit of using a White-centered perspective in constitutional race cases. Specifically, it looks at the Court's use of the rhetoric of White innocence in the context of the Court's concern with protecting "innocent" Whites …

Certiorari, Universality, And A Patent Puzzle, Tejas N. Narechania

Tejas N. Narechania

The Roberts Court And Freedom Of Speech, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

This is an edited version of a speech delivered on December 16, 2010 in Washington, D.C., as part of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Distinguished Speaker Series. This speech was given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in December 2010 as part of the FCBA's Distinguished Speaker Series. In the speech, Dean Chemerinsky offers his perspectives on and analysis of the Supreme Court's position on freedom of speech in recent years. He highlights important recent freedom of speech decisions made by the Roberts Court, and gives some projections as to where the court is heading in the years to come, given its …

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Duty To Give Reasons: Thong Ah Fat V Public Prosecutor [2011] Sgca 65, Siyuan Chen

Siyuan CHEN

The accused was charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act after being found with 142.41 grams of diamorphine at the Woodlands Checkpoint. The High Court Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death in a brief judgment of five paragraphs. The Court of Appeal, however, ordered a retrial as it was of the view that the Judge’s reasoning was “unclear” and the “judicial duty to give reasoned decisions” was not discharged

"A Radical Proposal": The Multidistrict Litigation Act Of 1968, Andrew D. Bradt

Andrew D. Bradt

Article I Judges In An Article Iii World: The Career Path Of Magistrate Judges, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Tracey George

No abstract provided.

A Courtroom Diagnosis: Countering The Defense Of Temporary Brittle Bone Disease And Mild Oi, Joelle A. Moreno

Joelle A. Moreno

In child abuse cases involving multiple fractures, prosecutors and investigators are increasingly facing a relatively new defense. In some jurisdictions, judges are allowing defense medical experts to testify that infants have not been abused, but instead suffer from a mild form of Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) or a purported variant of OI, Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (TBBD). These diagnoses are offered in cases where the injuries are highly specific for abuse because they involve: (1) fractures typical of abuse in different stages of healing; (2) infants who have tested negative for conventionally diagnosable metabolic bone diseases (including OI); and (3) infants …

Judges Or Hostages? The Bureaucratization Of The Court Of Justice Of The European Union And The European Court Of Human Rights, Mathilde Cohen

Mathilde Cohen

The Confident Court, Jennifer Mason Mcaward

Jennifer Mason McAward

Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses …

Advocacy Through Briefs In The U.S. Court Of Appeals., Susan B. Haire, Laura P. Moyer

Laura Moyer

The focus of this paper is to evaluate the role of advocates in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by examining the characterization of issues offered in appellate briefs against the issues addressed in the court's decisions. Specifically, in an environment in which attorneys are expected to frame the issues on appeal and judges are expected to respond to those issues, what accounts for judges addressing some issues while suppressing others? By explicitly focusing on how the substantive content of an opinion is shaped, we depart from other, earlier scholarship on the advantages of "repeat player" litigants …

Judicial Innovation And Sexual Harassment Doctrine In The U.S. Court Of Appeals., Laura P. Moyer, Holley Takersley

Laura Moyer

The determination that sexual harassment constituted “discrimination based on sex” under Title VII was first made by the lower federal courts, not Congress. Drawing from the literature on policy diffusion, this article examines the adoption of hostile work environment standards across the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the absence of controlling Supreme Court precedent. The results bolster recent findings about the influence of female judges on their male colleagues and suggest that in addition to siding with female plaintiffs, female judges also helped to shape legal rules that promoted gender equality in the workplace.

Diversity, Deliberations, And Judicial Opinion Writing., Susan B. Haire, Laura P. Moyer, Shawn Treier

Laura Moyer

Underlying scholarly interest in diversity is the premise that a representative body contributes to robust decision-making processes. Using an innovative measure of opinion content, we examine this premise by analyzing deliberative outputs in the US courts of appeals (1997-2002). While the presence of a single female or minority did not affect the attention to issues in the majority opinion, panels composed of a majority of women or minorities produced opinions with significantly more points of law compared to panels with three Caucasian males.

Gender, Race, And Intersectionality On The Federal Appellate Bench., Todd Collins, Laura Moyer

Laura Moyer

While theoretical justifications predict that a judge’s gender and race may influence judicial decisions, empirical support for these arguments has been mixed. However, recent increases in judicial diversity necessitate a reexamination of these earlier studies. Rather than examining individual judges on a single characteristic, such as gender or race alone, this research note argues that the intersection of individual characteristics may provide an alternative approach for evaluating the effects of diversity on the federal appellate bench. The results of cohort models examining the joint effects of race and gender suggest that minority female judges are more likely to support criminal …

Trailblazers And Those That Followed : Personal Experiences, Gender, And Judicial Empathy., Laura P. Moyer, Susan B. Haire

Laura Moyer

This paper investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality. We find that female judges are more likely than their male colleagues to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, but that this difference is seen only in judges who graduated law school …

Rethinking Critical Mass In The Federal Appellate Courts., Laura Moyer

Laura Moyer

This article draws from critical mass studies of gender in other political institutions to inform an application to the US Courts of Appeals. The results demonstrate the utility of considering court-level aspects of diversity. As mixed-sex panels become more common within a circuit, both male and female judges increasingly support plaintiffs in civil rights claims, though the magnitude of the effect is larger for women. The presence of a female chief judge is also positively associated with pro-plaintiff decisions by men and women in sex discrimination cases.

Class Actions And The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation, Stephen B. Burbank, Sean Farhang

Sean Farhang

In this article we situate consideration of class actions in a framework, and fortify it with data, that we have developed as part of a larger project, the goal of which is to assess the counterrevolution against private enforcement of federal law from an institutional perspective. In a series of articles emerging from the project, we have documented how the Executive, Congress and the Supreme Court (wielding both judicial power under Article III of the Constitution and delegated legislative power under the Rules Enabling Act) fared in efforts to reverse or dull the effects of statutory and other incentives for …