Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Norms (2)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Constitutional settlement (1)
- Double jeopardy (1)
- Education (1)
-
- Education adequacy (1)
- Empirical (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1)
- Hung jury (1)
- Judicial branch (1)
- Legislative branch (1)
- Machine learning (1)
- Multidistrict litigation (1)
- Natural language processing (1)
- Nonpartisanship (1)
- Partisanship (1)
- Political question (1)
- Right to education (1)
- Rule 11 (1)
- Rulemaking (1)
- Sanctions (1)
- State constitution (1)
- State court (1)
- State supreme court (1)
- State survey (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Textualism (1)
- Trial (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Judges
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …