Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (16)
- Legal Biography (10)
- Jurisprudence (9)
- Law and Society (5)
- Constitutional Law (4)
-
- Law and Politics (4)
- Legal Profession (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (3)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Education Law (1)
- Election Law (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- In memoriam (10)
- Justice Stevens (10)
- Judges (7)
- Judicial decisionmaking (3)
- Courts (2)
-
- Empirical (2)
- Federal judiciary (2)
- Judiciary (2)
- Norms (2)
- Partisanship (2)
- Posner (2)
- Statutory interpretation (2)
- Agent (1)
- Appellate procedure (1)
- Appointment (1)
- Balancing (1)
- Booker (1)
- Burwell (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Chief Justice (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Clerkship (1)
- Common law (1)
- Constitutional pluralism (1)
- Constitutional settlement (1)
- Court expansion (1)
- Court of appeals (1)
- Court packing (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 37
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw
Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw
Northwestern University Law Review
It was once well settled and uncontroversial—reflected in legislative enactments, Executive Branch practice, judicial doctrine, and the broader constitutional culture—that the Constitution imposed limits on government partisanship. This principle was one instantiation of a broader set of rule of law principles: that law is not merely an instrument of political power; that government resources should not be used to further partisan interests, or to damage partisan adversaries.
For at least a century, each branch of the federal government has participated in the development and articulation of this nonpartisanship principle. In the legislative realm, federal statutes beginning with the 1883 Pendleton …
Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang
Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang
Northwestern University Law Review
When the Supreme Court declined to recognize the right to education as one fundamental to liberty, and thus unprotected by the U.S. Constitution, state courts took on the mantle as the next best fora for those yearning for judicial review of inequities present in American public schools. The explicit inclusion of the right to education in each state’s constitution carried the torch of optimism into the late twentieth century. Despite half a century of litigation in the states, the condition of the nation’s public school system remains troubling and perhaps increasingly falls short of expectations. Less competitive on an international …
Are They All Textualists Now?, Austin Peters
Are They All Textualists Now?, Austin Peters
Northwestern University Law Review
Recent developments at the U.S. Supreme Court have rekindled debates over textualism. Missing from the conversation is a discussion of the courts that decide the vast majority of statutory interpretation cases in the United States—state courts. This Article uses supervised machine learning to conduct the first-ever empirical study of the statutory interpretation methods used by state supreme courts. In total, this study analyzes over 44,000 opinions from all fifty states from 1980 to 2019.
This Article establishes several key descriptive findings. First, since the 1980s, textualism has risen rapidly in state supreme court opinions. Second, this rise is primarily attributable …
Hung Out To Try: A Rule 29 Revision To Stop Hung Jury Retrials, Elijah N. Gelman
Hung Out To Try: A Rule 29 Revision To Stop Hung Jury Retrials, Elijah N. Gelman
Northwestern University Law Review
How many times can a defendant be retried? For those facing hung jury retrials, it’s as many times as the government pleases. Double jeopardy prohibitions do not apply when juries fail to reach a verdict.
There is, theoretically, a built-in procedural solution to stop the government from endlessly retrying defendants. Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows judges to acquit defendants when “the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Considering that a hung jury indicates the jurors could not agree on the sufficiency of the evidence, defendants facing hung jury retrials are prime candidates for this …
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
Northwestern University Law Review
The rules of civil procedure depend on norms and conventions that control their application. Civil procedure is a famously rule-based field centered on textual commands in the form of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). There are over eighty rules, hundreds of local judge-made rules, due process doctrines, and statutory rules, too. But written rules are overrated. Deep down, proceduralists know that the application of written rules hinges on broader norms that animate them, expand or constrain them, and even empower judges to ignore them. Unlike the FRCP and related doctrines, these procedural norms are unwritten, sociological, flexible, and …
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Northwestern University Law Review
In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.
These cases raise important questions about …
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
Northwestern University Law Review
U.S. courts rely predominately on judicial self-recusal and in-court disclosure to address judicial conflicts of interest and maintain a critical perception of impartiality. But these approaches fail to account for the legal, institutional, and social dynamics that surround the relationship between judges, attorneys, and the adjudicative process. In reality, judges rarely use their discretion to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves, and attorneys do not ask them to do so. If we understand both the legal and extralegal incentives at play in these decisions, none of these outcomes should be surprising. The shortcomings of recusal and disclosure rules are particularly salient …
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
Northwestern University Law Review
The conversation about Supreme Court reform—as important as it is—has obscured another, equally important conversation: the need for lower federal court reform. The U.S. Courts of Appeals have not seen their ranks grow in over three decades. Even then, those additions were stopgap measures built on an appellate triage system that had outsourced much of its work to nonjudicial decision-makers (central judicial staff and law clerks). Those changes born of necessity have now become core features of the federal appellate system, which distributes judicial resources—including oral argument and judicial scrutiny—to a select few. This Article begins to reimagine the courts …
Stepification, Mitchell Chervu Johnston
Stepification, Mitchell Chervu Johnston
Northwestern University Law Review
Multistep tests pervade the law to the point that they appear to be a fundamental feature of legal reasoning. Famous doctrines such as Chevron or qualified immunity take this form, as do more obscure doctrinal formulas. But surprisingly, these doctrinal formulations as a class are relatively new. The reality is that the intellectual moment that gave rise to Chevron was one in which multiple older doctrines that relied on multifactor balancing were replaced by new tests formulated as multistep inquiries in which each step was a discrete inquiry.
This Article provides the first historical and normative account of this phenomenon—which …
Can There Be Too Much Specialization? Specialization In Specialized Courts, Melissa F. Wasserman, Jonathan D. Slack
Can There Be Too Much Specialization? Specialization In Specialized Courts, Melissa F. Wasserman, Jonathan D. Slack
Northwestern University Law Review
While modern society has embraced specialization, the federal judiciary continues to prize the generalist jurist. This disconnect is at the core of the growing debate on the optimal level of specialization in the judiciary. To date, this discussion has largely revolved around the creation of specialized courts. Opinion specialization, however, provides an alternative, underappreciated method to infuse specialization into the judiciary. In contrast to specialized courts, opinion specialization is understudied and undertheorized.
This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, this Article theorizes whether opinion specialization is a desirable practice. It argues that the practice’s costs and benefits are …
Why Judicial Independence Fails, Aziz Z. Huq
Why Judicial Independence Fails, Aziz Z. Huq
Northwestern University Law Review
Judicial independence seems under siege. President Trump condemns federal courts for their political bias; his erstwhile presidential opponents mull various court-packing plans; and courts, in turn, are lambasted for abandoning a long-held constitutional convention against institutional manipulation. At the same time, across varied lines of jurisprudence, the Roberts Court evinces a deep worry about judicial independence. This preoccupation with threats to judicial independence infuses recent opinions on administrative deference, bankruptcy, patent adjudication, and jurisdiction-stripping. Yet the Court has not offered a single, overarching definition of what it means by the term “judicial independence.” Nor has it explained how its disjointed …
The Promise Of Senior Judges, Marin K. Levy
The Promise Of Senior Judges, Marin K. Levy
Northwestern University Law Review
Judges, lawmakers, and scholars have long debated whether the federal courts of appeals are understaffed and, if so, how Congress should go about redressing that fact. Even though there is currently a strong argument that some new judgeships should be created, such a path presents logistical complications. If a significant number of seats are added to the appellate bench, circuits may eventually become too large to function well. And if a significant number of circuits are ultimately split, the total number of federal appellate courts may become too large for the judiciary as a whole to function well. Furthermore, there …
Avoiding Judicial Discipline, Veronica Root Martinez
Avoiding Judicial Discipline, Veronica Root Martinez
Northwestern University Law Review
Over the past several years, several high-profile complaints have been levied against Article III judges alleging improper conduct. Many of these complaints, however, were dismissed without investigation after the judge in question removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the circuit’s judicial council—oftentimes through retirement and once through elevation to the Supreme Court. When judges—the literal arbiters of justice within American society—are able to elude oversight of their own potential misconduct, it puts the legitimacy of the judiciary and the rule of law in jeopardy.
This Essay argues that it is imperative that mechanisms are adopted that will ensure investigations into …
On Sexual Harassment In The Judiciary, Leah M. Litman, Deeva Shah
On Sexual Harassment In The Judiciary, Leah M. Litman, Deeva Shah
Northwestern University Law Review
This Essay examines the legal profession’s role in sexual harassment, particularly in the federal courts. It argues that individuals in the profession have both an individual and collective responsibility for the professional norms that have allowed harassment to happen with little recourse for the people subject to the harassment. It suggests that the legal profession should engage in a sustained, public reflection about how our words, actions, attitudes, and institutional arrangements allow harassment to happen, and about the many different ways that we can prevent and address harassment.
Sixty-Five Oral Arguments Were Not Enough: A Tribute To Justice Stevens From Across The Bench, Carter G. Phillips
Sixty-Five Oral Arguments Were Not Enough: A Tribute To Justice Stevens From Across The Bench, Carter G. Phillips
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judging And Baseball, Merritt E. Mcalister
Judging And Baseball, Merritt E. Mcalister
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
"The Function Of The Independent Lawyer As A Guardian Of Our Freedom": The Great Stevens Dissent In Walters, Andrew Koppelman
"The Function Of The Independent Lawyer As A Guardian Of Our Freedom": The Great Stevens Dissent In Walters, Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Memoriam, Hannah Mullen
Price-Fixing In The Motion Picture Industry, John Paul Stevens
Price-Fixing In The Motion Picture Industry, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Is Justice Irrelevant?, John Paul Stevens
Is Justice Irrelevant?, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Paradox Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
The Paradox Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Introductory Comment, Seventy-Fifth Volume, John Paul Stevens
Introductory Comment, Seventy-Fifth Volume, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Monopoly Or Monopolization––A Reply To Professor Rostow, Edward R. Johnston, John Paul Stevens
Monopoly Or Monopolization––A Reply To Professor Rostow, Edward R. Johnston, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Personal History Of The Law Review, John Paul Stevens
A Personal History Of The Law Review, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Punishing On A Curve, Adi Leibovitch
Punishing On A Curve, Adi Leibovitch
Northwestern University Law Review
Does the punishment of one defendant depend on how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge’s docket? This Article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence a given offense more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this phenomenon “punishing on a curve.”
Consequently, this Article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts and courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges punish on a curve, a court’s jurisdictional scope systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. …
Clarence Thomas The Questioner, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Aaron L. Nielson
Clarence Thomas The Questioner, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Aaron L. Nielson
Northwestern University Law Review
One of Justice Clarence Thomas’s most remarked upon characteristics is his reluctance to ask questions during oral argument. Observers have criticized him for his silence, with some suggesting that it reflects disrespect for his colleagues and the advocates appearing before the Supreme Court. Others defend his silence, noting, for instance, that historically oral argument played a much less significant role and that Justice Thomas’s written opinions speak for themselves. What has been overlooked in this debate, however, is the fact that Justice Thomas is very talented at asking questions. Indeed, in many ways, he is a model questioner. Drawing on …
The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler
The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler
Northwestern University Law Review
It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.
This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …
Not All Plea Breaches Are Equal: Examining Heredia’S Extension Of Implicit Breach Analysis, Kevin Arns
Not All Plea Breaches Are Equal: Examining Heredia’S Extension Of Implicit Breach Analysis, Kevin Arns
Northwestern University Law Review
When the government enters into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant that stipulates that the government will give a specific sentence recommendation in exchange for the defendant’s guilty plea, it can implicitly breach that agreement by clearly distancing itself from the recommendation at the sentencing hearing. In most circuits, the implicit breach of a non-court-binding plea agreement—an agreement where the defendant is bound to the guilty plea even if the court rejects the sentence recommendation—entitles defendants to a remedy. However, in 2014, the Ninth Circuit was the first circuit to hold that a defendant is entitled to a remedy …
Opinions I Should Have Written, Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.)
Opinions I Should Have Written, Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.)
Northwestern University Law Review
In 1991, the Chicago law firm of Pope & John Ltd. established a lecture series at Northwestern University School of Law. The Pope & John Lecture on Professionalism focuses on the many dimensions of a lawyer’s professional responsibility, including legal ethics, public service, professional civility, pro bono representation, and standards of conduct. The Northwestern University Law Review is pleased to present the November 12, 2014 Pope & John Lecture by Judge Nancy Gertner.
When Rules Are Made To Be Broken, Zev J. Eigen, David S. Sherwyn, Nicholas F. Menillo
When Rules Are Made To Be Broken, Zev J. Eigen, David S. Sherwyn, Nicholas F. Menillo
Northwestern University Law Review
When do judges follow rules expected to produce unjust results, and when do they intentionally misapply such rules to avoid injustice? Judicial rule-breaking is commonly observed when national dignity and morality are at stake, such as abolitionist judges charged with applying federal fugitive slave laws, or when lives hang in the balance, such as applications of criminal sentencing rules. Much less is understood about judicial rule-breaking in quotidian civil litigation, in spite of the sizeable impact on litigants and potential litigants, as well as the frequency with which judges face such decisions. This Article is the first to theoretically assess …