Judges Commons^™

Situating Structural Challenges To Agency Authority Within The Framework Of The Finality Principle, Harold J. Krent

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.

Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Past And The Present: Stare Decisis In Wisconsin Law, Daniel R. Suhr, Kevin Leroy

Marquette Law Review

None

Nomination And Confirmation Of Supreme Court Justices: Some Personal Observations, Joseph L. Rauth Jr.

Maine Law Review

The following remarks were delivered on October 13, 1992, on the occasion of the first Frank M. Coffin Lecture on Law and Public Service, henceforth to be an annual event at the University of Maine School of Law. The speech was written by the late Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., who died a few weeks before the speech was to be given. The speech was presented by his widow, Olie Rauh, and their son, Michael Rauh.

Judicial Elections And Issue Advertising: A Two-State Study, Christopher Terry, Mitchell T. Bard

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Popular Elections, Former Justice Robert L. Brown

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Why Amending The Consitution To Overrule Citizens United Is The Wrong Way To Fix Campaign Finance In The United States, Zachary Hale

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Putting Equality To A Vote: Individual Rights, Judicial Elections, And The Arkansas Supreme Court, Billy Corriher

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Enhanced Campaing Finance Disclosure And Recusal Rules To Offset The Influence Of Dark Money In State Supreme Court Elections, Cathy R. Silak, Emily Siess Donnellan

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

May It Please The Court?: The Perils Of Correcting A Justice's Pronunciation, James J. Duane

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Infrequently Asked Questions, Edward T. Swaine

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

If appellate advocates could hear from courts about topics that might be raised during oral argument—as opposed to relying solely on their ability to anticipate the issues—might their answers be better? That seems likely, but it is unlikely that research could confirm that, as judicial practice overwhelmingly favors impromptu questioning. Spontaneity may be harmless if the question was predictable, or unavoidable if a judge just thought of the question. But sometimes advocates have to answer challenging questions concerning the law, facts, or implications of a position—questions that help decide the case, either due to the quality of the answer or …

The Nevada Supreme Court Between 2010 And 2014, Jordan T. Smith

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sua Sponte Actions In The Appellate Courts: The "Gorilla Rule" Revisited, Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Aaron S. Lichter

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

All Copying Is Not Created Equal: Borrowed Language In Supreme Court Opinions, Adam Feldman

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When The Chief Justice Serves In The Legislative Branch, Roy E. Brownell Ii

ConLawNOW

This article argues that the Chief Justice is considered part of the legislative branch during presidential impeachment trials. In so arguing, this article first argues, as a matter of constitutional text, that the Chief Justice during presidential impeachment trials steps into the shoes of the president of the Senate. The Chief Justice’s authority in this vein is granted by Article I, which predominantly governs the legislative branch, and not Article III, which does the same for the federal judiciary.

Indeed, the only reference to the Chief Justice in the entirety of the Constitution occurs in this context in Article I. …

Revisiting The Influence Of Law Clerks On The U.S. Supreme Court's Agenda-Setting Process, Ryan C. Black, Christina L. Boyd, Amanda C. Bryan

Marquette Law Review

Do law clerks influence U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ decisions in the Court’s agenda-setting stage? For those Justices responding to their own law clerks’ cert recommendations, we expect a high degree of agreement between Justice and clerk. For non-employing Justices, however, we anticipate that the likelihood of agreement between clerk and Justice will vary greatly based on the interplay among the ideological compatibility between a Justice and the clerk, the underlying certworthiness of the petition for review, and the clerk’s final recommendation. Relying on a newly collected dataset of petitions making the Court’s discuss list over the 1986 through 1993 Terms, …

Law Clerks As Advisors: A Look At The Blackmun Papers, Zachary Wallander, Sara C. Benesh

Marquette Law Review

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court seek advice, by way of cert pool memos, when making their consequential agenda-setting decisions. There is some debate over the extent to which these law clerks actually influence the Justices. Focusing on the certiorari stage and on the information and advice provided to the Court via the cert pool memos, we ascertain the extent to which the contents of the memos drive the decision making of the Court. We find that information about conflict, amici, and the position of the United States does indeed influence the Court’s votes, but also that the …