Judges Commons^™

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …

Judicial Ethics And Supreme Court Exceptionalism, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on Congress’s authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, declaring that the constitutionality of such legislation has “never been tested.” Roberts’ comments not only raise important questions about the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, they also call into question the constitutionality of a number of existing and proposed ethics statutes. Thus, the topic deserves close attention.

This Essay contends that Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate the Justices’ ethical conduct, just as it has exercised control over other vital aspects of the …

My Brethren’S (Gate) Keeper? Testimony By U.S. Judges At Others’ Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings: Its Implications For Judicial Independence And Judicial Ethics, Mary Clark

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This article, prompted by the testimony of seven of Samuel Alito's then-current and former Third Circuit colleagues at his hearing to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, examines the merits of federal judges testifying at others' Supreme Court confirmation hearings. While mindful of other approaches to the question of judicial participation in other judicial appointments systems and of their comparative advantages and disadvantages, the author nevertheless concludes that judges threaten judicial independence and judicial ethics principles when they exercise power in the Article III appointments realm. It is not so much a question of judges usurping the …