Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- Briefs (1)
- Circuit split (1)
- Conflict (1)
- Constitution (1)
-
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Courts of appeals (1)
- Data (1)
- Effectiveness (1)
- Empirical Analysis (1)
- En banc (1)
- Federal Courts of Appeals (1)
- Holmes v. Watson (1)
- Influence (1)
- Judicial constraint (1)
- Judicial opinion; court; judicial decision; writing; Supreme Court (1)
- King v. Burwell (1)
- Law of the circuit (1)
- Original public meaning (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Percolation (1)
- Purposivism (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Supreme court review (1)
- Textual interpretation (1)
- Textualism (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Nagging In Our Ears And Original Public Meaning, Perry Dane
The Nagging In Our Ears And Original Public Meaning, Perry Dane
Marquette Law Review
The debate over how to understand the meaning of legal texts once pitted intentionalism against a variety of other views united by the conviction that a legal enactment takes on a meaning not reducible to anybody’s mental state. Both these approaches are supported by powerful intuitions. This Article does not try to referee between them. Instead, it takes aim at a third set of views— theories of “original public meaning”—that in recent decades has upended the traditional debate and has now become gospel for the new majority on the United States Supreme Court.
Holmes V. Walton And Its Enduring Lessons For Originalism, Justin W. Aimonetti
Holmes V. Walton And Its Enduring Lessons For Originalism, Justin W. Aimonetti
Marquette Law Review
Originalism is nothing new. And the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 1780 decision in Holmes v. Walton shows it. In that case, the New Jersey Supreme Court disallowed a state law as repugnant to the state constitution because the law permitted a jury of only six to render a judgment. To reach that result, the court looked to the fixed, original meaning of the jury trial guarantee embedded in the state constitution, and it then constrained its interpretive latitude in conformity with that fixed meaning. Holmes thus cuts against the common misconception that originalism as an interpretive methodology is a modern …
How Circuits Can Fix Their Splits, Wyatt G. Sassman
How Circuits Can Fix Their Splits, Wyatt G. Sassman
Marquette Law Review
The desire to avoid conflicts between the regional circuits of the federal courts of appeals, commonly known as “circuit splits,” has had an immense influence on the structure and operation of the federal appellate courts for roughly a century. Over time, the Supreme Court has been assigned responsibility for resolving these conflicts. Yet as overall federal caseloads have increased, this reliance on the Supreme Court has imposed serious and well-recognized burdens on the operation of the federal courts. For decades scholars have debated bold proposals to address these problems, such as creating a new national court dedicated to resolving conflicts …
Supreme Silence And Precedential Pragmatism: King V. Burwell And Statutory Interpretation In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Michael J. Cedrone
Supreme Silence And Precedential Pragmatism: King V. Burwell And Statutory Interpretation In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Michael J. Cedrone
Marquette Law Review
This Article studies statutory interpretation as it is practiced in the federal
courts of appeal. Much of the academic commentary in this field focuses on the
Supreme Court, which skews the debate and unduly polarizes the field. This
Article investigates more broadly by looking at the seventy-two federal
appellate cases that cite King v. Burwell in the two years after the Court issued
its decision. In deciding that the words “established by the State” encompass
a federal program, the Court in King reached a pragmatic and practical result
based on statutory scheme and purpose at a fairly high level of …
Supreme Verbosity: The Roberts Court's Expanding Legacy
Supreme Verbosity: The Roberts Court's Expanding Legacy
Marquette Law Review
The link between courts and the public is the written word. With rare exceptions, it is through judicial opinions that courts communicate with litigants, lawyers, other courts, and the community. Whatever the court’s statutory and constitutional status, the written word, in the end, is the source and the measure of the court’s authority.
It is therefore not enough that a decision be correct—it must also be fair and reasonable and readily understood. The burden of the judicial opinion is to explain and to persuade and to satisfy the world that the decision is principled and sound. What the court says, …
Who Wins In The Supreme Court? An Examination Of Attorney And Law Firm Influence, Adam Feldman
Who Wins In The Supreme Court? An Examination Of Attorney And Law Firm Influence, Adam Feldman
Marquette Law Review
Who are the most successful attorneys in the Supreme Court? A novel way to answer this question is by looking at attorneys’ relative influence on the course of the law. This article performs macro and micro-level analyses of the most successful Supreme Court litigators by examining the amount of language shared between nearly 9,500 Supreme Court merits briefs and their respective Supreme Court opinions from 1946 through 2013. The article also includes analyses of the most successful law firms according to the same metric.