Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Judges Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

College of William & Mary Law School

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 1 - 30 of 91

Full-Text Articles in Judges

Rationing The Constitution: Beyond And Below, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Sep 2019

Rationing The Constitution: Beyond And Below, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii Jun 2019

A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii

William & Mary Law Review Online

This is the transcript of a lecture Mr. McGahn delivered at William & Mary Law School on November 19, 2018.


The Supreme Court's Legitimacy Dilemma, Tara Leigh Grove Jun 2019

The Supreme Court's Legitimacy Dilemma, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Filling The Ninth Circuit Vacancies, Carl Tobias May 2019

Filling The Ninth Circuit Vacancies, Carl Tobias

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon Republican President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit experienced some pressing appellate vacancies, which the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) carefully identified as “judicial emergencies” because the tribunal resolves a massive docket. Last year’s death of the iconic liberal champion Stephen Reinhardt and the late 2017 departure of libertarian former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski—who both assumed pivotal circuit leadership roles over numerous years—and a few of their colleagues’ decision to leave active court service thereafter, mean the tribunal presently confronts four judicial emergencies and resolves ...


Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes May 2019

Justice Begins Before Trial: How To Nudge Inaccurate Pretrial Rulings Using Behavioral Law And Economic Theory And Uniform Commercial Laws, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pretrial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. As behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor ...


Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr. Feb 2019

Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.

The conservatives ...


Democratizing Interpretation, Anya Bernstein Nov 2018

Democratizing Interpretation, Anya Bernstein

William & Mary Law Review

Judges interpreting statutes sometimes seem eager to outsource the work. They quote ordinary speakers to define a statutory term, point to how an audience understands it, or pin it down with interpretive canons. But sometimes conduct that appears to diminish someone’s power instead sneakily enhances it. So it is with these forms of interpretive outsourcing. Each seems to constrain judges’ authority by handing the reins to someone else, giving interpretation a democratized veneer. But in fact, each funnels power right back to the judge.

These outsourcing approaches show a disconnect between the questions judges pose and the methods they ...


Can Judges Be Uncivilly Obedient?, Brannon P. Denning Oct 2018

Can Judges Be Uncivilly Obedient?, Brannon P. Denning

William & Mary Law Review

In a recent article, Jessica Bulman-Pozen and David Pozen identified “uncivil obedience” as a tactic for protesting laws or regulations, not by violating the law, as with civil disobedience, but rather by scrupulous attendance to it. They noted that it is a tactic available to private and public actors alike, but were doubtful that a judicial variety existed. They were skeptical because, in their opinion, even hyper-formalist legal opinions would be unlikely to be perceived as provocative as scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law might be when practiced by non-judicial actors. In this Article, I argue that judicial ...


The Power Of "So-Called Judges", Tara Leigh Grove Apr 2018

The Power Of "So-Called Judges", Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove Mar 2018

The Origins (And Fragility) Of Judicial Independence, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article III judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court’s size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these “self-evident truths” of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of ...


Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The William & Mary Law School Sep 2017

Section 2: Trump And The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law At The William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.


Judicial Fact-Finding In An Age Of Rapid Change: Creative Reforms From Abroad, Allison Orr Larsen Jun 2017

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

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


The Vanishing Common Law Judge, Neal Devins, David Klein Feb 2017

The Vanishing Common Law Judge, Neal Devins, David Klein

Faculty Publications

The common law style of judging appears to be on its way out. Trial courts rarely shape legal policymaking by asserting decisional autonomy through distinguishing, limiting, or criticizing higher court precedent. In an earlier study, we demonstrated the reluctance of lower court judges to assert decisional autonomy by invoking the holding–dicta dichotomy. In this Article, we make use of original empirical research to study the level of deference U.S. district court judges exhibit toward higher courts and whether the level of deference has changed over time. Our analysis of citation behavior over an eighty-year period reveals a dramatic ...


Federalist Court: How The Federalist Society Became The De Facto Selector Of Republican Supreme Court Justices, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins Jan 2017

Federalist Court: How The Federalist Society Became The De Facto Selector Of Republican Supreme Court Justices, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Does The 'Mcconnell Principle' Make Sense?, Jeffrey Bellin Apr 2016

Does The 'Mcconnell Principle' Make Sense?, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Now Is The Time: Experts Vs. The Uninitiated As Future Nominees To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Bradley W. Hennings, David E. Boelzner, Jennifer Rickman White Apr 2016

Now Is The Time: Experts Vs. The Uninitiated As Future Nominees To The U.S. Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Bradley W. Hennings, David E. Boelzner, Jennifer Rickman White

Faculty Publications

Two-thirds of judges appointed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC" or "Court") could and should be drawn from among lawyers experienced in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") benefits claims adjudication system. It is a specialty court, and like other such courts, its judges would benefit from specialized experience. All stakeholders in the claims system and the Court's work, and most importantly, veterans, would benefit from a Court that has appointees steeped in VA law and adjudication.


How Merrick Garland Could Help Heal America, Jeffrey Bellin Mar 2016

How Merrick Garland Could Help Heal America, Jeffrey Bellin

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Ideological Imbalance: Why Democrats Usually Pick Moderate-Liberal Justices And Republicans Usually Pick Conservative Ones, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins Mar 2016

Ideological Imbalance: Why Democrats Usually Pick Moderate-Liberal Justices And Republicans Usually Pick Conservative Ones, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


'"Ideology" Or "Situation Sense"? An Experimental Investigation Of Motivated Reasoning And Professional Judgment, Dan M. Kahan, David Hoffman, Danieli Evans, Neal Devins, Eugene Lucci, Katherine Cheng Jan 2016

'"Ideology" Or "Situation Sense"? An Experimental Investigation Of Motivated Reasoning And Professional Judgment, Dan M. Kahan, David Hoffman, Danieli Evans, Neal Devins, Eugene Lucci, Katherine Cheng

Faculty Publications

This Article reports the results of a study on whether political predispositions influence judicial decisionmaking. The study was designed to overcome the two principal limitations on existing empirical studies that purport to find such an influence: the use of nonexperimental methods to assess the decisions of actual judges; and the failure to use actual judges in ideologically-biased-reasoning experiments. The study involved a sample of sitting judges (n = 253), who, like members of a general public sample (n = 800), were culturally polarized on climate change, marijuana legalization and other contested issues. When the study subjects were assigned to analyze statutory interpretation ...


Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno Dec 2015

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 ...


The Real Constitutional Problem With State Judicial Selection: Due Process, Judicial Retention, And The Dangers Of Popular Constitutionalism, Martin H. Redish, Jennifer Aronoff Oct 2014

The Real Constitutional Problem With State Judicial Selection: Due Process, Judicial Retention, And The Dangers Of Popular Constitutionalism, Martin H. Redish, Jennifer Aronoff

William & Mary Law Review

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., decided in 2009, the Supreme Court held for the first time that conduct related to a judicial election campaign violated a litigant’s right to procedural due process because the opposing litigant had contributed an inordinate amount of money to the campaign of one of the justices ruling on the case. The due process danger recognized in Caperton rests on a fear of retrospective gratitude—that is, the fear that the Justice would decide his contributor’s case differently because he was grateful for the litigant’s generous support. The Court’s ...


Judging In The Age Of Technology, Fredric I. Lederer Oct 2014

Judging In The Age Of Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Jul 2014

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 ...


In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales Mar 2014

In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court ...


Administrative Judges And Agency Policy Development: The Koch Way, Ronald M. Levin Dec 2013

Administrative Judges And Agency Policy Development: The Koch Way, Ronald M. Levin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Among the creative contributions that the late Charles H. Koch, Jr., made to administrative law thinking was his exploration of the present and potential role of administrative judges as policymakers. Charles stood in firm opposition to recent trends that, in his view, had served to strengthen the policymaking role of administrative judges at the expense of agency heads. He insisted that ultimate control over the policy direction of a program should rest with the officials who have been appointed to administer that program. While adhering to this baseline, however, Charles gravitated over time toward a nuanced view that sought to ...


Hierarchically Variable Deference To Agency Interpretations, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Dec 2013

Hierarchically Variable Deference To Agency Interpretations, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

When courts review agency action, they typically accord agency decisions a degree of deference. As many courts and commentators have recognized, the law in this area is complicated because it features numerous standards of review, including several distinct regimes for evaluating agencies’ legal interpretations. There is, however, at least one important respect in which uniformity rather than variety prevails: the applicable standards of review do not vary depending on which court is reviewing the agency. Whichever standard governs a particular case—Chevron, Skidmore, or something else—all courts in the judicial hierarchy are supposed to apply that same standard.

This ...


Judicial Activism And The Problem Of Induction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Jul 2013

Judicial Activism And The Problem Of Induction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

A comment on Suzanna Sherry’s "Why We Need More Judicial Activism."


Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib Oct 2012

Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Publications

This Article considers whether differences in methods of judicial selection should influence how judges approach statutory interpretation. Courts and scholars have not given this question much sustained attention, but most would probably embrace the “unified model,” according to which appointed judges (such as federal judges) and elected judges (such as many state judges) are supposed to approach statutory text in identical ways. There is much to be said for the unified model—and we offer the first systematic defense of it. But the Article also attempts to make the best case for the more controversial but also plausible contrary view ...


Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Mar 2012

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

Faculty Publications

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 ...


The Religious Liberty Of Judges, Daniel R. Suhr Oct 2011

The Religious Liberty Of Judges, Daniel R. Suhr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article begins by reviewing the government employee line of cases, starting with United Public Workers v. Mitchell in 1947.29 The first section concludes that the modified Pickering balancing test set forth in United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is the appropriate level of scrutiny for judicial conduct rules. The body of this Article reviews ways in which the four canons of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Ethics and official interpretations of and rulings regarding them limit the religious activities of judges. I conclude that numerous applications of the Model Code are unconstitutional infringements on judges ...