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

Courts Commons

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

11,128 Full-Text Articles 7,845 Authors 3,852,005 Downloads 190 Institutions

All Articles in Courts

Faceted Search

11,128 full-text articles. Page 4 of 215.

The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every ...


Statutory Interpretation And The Rest Of The Iceberg: Divergences Between The Lower Federal Courts And The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Statutory Interpretation And The Rest Of The Iceberg: Divergences Between The Lower Federal Courts And The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article examines the methods of statutory interpretation used by the lower federal courts, especially the federal district courts, and compares those methods to the practices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This novel research reveals both similarities across courts and some striking differences. The research shows that some interpretive tools are highly overrepresented in the Supreme Court’s decisions, while other tools are much more prevalent in the lower courts. Differences in prevalence persist even after accounting for the selection effect that stems from the Supreme Court’s discretionary docket. Another finding—based on a study of 40 years ...


Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman 2019 William & Mary Law School

Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one ...


Measuring Circuit Splits: A Cautionary Note, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Measuring Circuit Splits: A Cautionary Note, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

A number of researchers have recently published new measures of the Supreme Court’s behavior in resolving conflicts in the lower courts. These new measures represent an improvement over prior, cruder approaches, but it turns out that measuring the Court’s resolutions of conflicts is surprisingly difficult. The aim of this methodological comment is to describe those difficulties and to establish several conclusions that follow from them. First, the new measures of the Court’s behavior are certainly imprecise and may reflect biased samples. Second, using the Supreme Court Database, which some studies rely on to assemble a dataset of ...


Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

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

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

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 ...


Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl 2019 William & Mary Law School

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

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

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 ...


Displacing The Judiciary: Customary Law And The Threat Of A Defensive Tribal Council: A Book Review Of Raymond D. Austin, Navajo Courts And Navajo Common Law: A Tradition Of Tribal Self-Governance (2009), Ezra Rosser 2019 Selected Works

Displacing The Judiciary: Customary Law And The Threat Of A Defensive Tribal Council: A Book Review Of Raymond D. Austin, Navajo Courts And Navajo Common Law: A Tradition Of Tribal Self-Governance (2009), Ezra Rosser

Ezra Rosser

No abstract provided.


Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost 2019 Selected Works

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

Amanda Frost

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 ...


Notoriously Ruthless: The Idolization Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Lucille Moran 2019 Macalester College

Notoriously Ruthless: The Idolization Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Lucille Moran

Political Science Honors Projects

It is now a fixture of mainstream commentary in the United States that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become a popular idol on the political left. Yet, while Justice Ginsburg’s image and story has reached an unprecedented level of valorization and even commercialization, scholars have yet to give sustained attention to the phenomenon and to contextualize it: why has this idolization emerged within this context, and what is its impact? This paper situates her portrayal in the cultural imagination as the product of two political forces, namely partisanship and identity politics. Considering parallel scholarly discourses of reputation ...


The Effectiveness Of Measures To Increase Appellate Court Efficiency And Decision Output, Thomas B. Marvell, Carlisle E. Moody 2019 Court Studies, Inc.

The Effectiveness Of Measures To Increase Appellate Court Efficiency And Decision Output, Thomas B. Marvell, Carlisle E. Moody

Carlisle Moody

This Article will examine the effectiveness of measures commonly employed to increase appellate court productivity. Part I of the Article sets forth some common design problems and explains how the research technique employed in the present study avoids these problems by using a multiple time-series research design. Part II applies this design to state court data. Part II also describes the dependent variable, the number of appeals decided per judge, used in the regression analysis. Part III discusses the results of that analysis-the impact of each change listed above on judicial productivity. The Article, although not advocating the adoption of ...


The Trouble With Amicus Facts, Allison Orr Larsen 2019 William & Mary Law School

The Trouble With Amicus Facts, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

The number of amicus curiae briefs filed at the Supreme Court is at an all-time high. Most observers, and even some of the Justices, believe that the best of these briefs are filed to supplement the Court’s understanding of facts. Supreme Court decisions quite often turn on generalized facts about the way the world works (Do violent video games harm children? Is a partial birth abortion ever medically necessary?). To answer these questions, the Justices are hungry for more information than the parties and the record can provide. The consensus is that amicus briefs helpfully add factual expertise to ...


The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins 2019 William & Mary Law School

The Amicus Machine, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Allison Orr Larsen

The Supreme Court receives a record number of amicus curiae briefs and cites to them with increasing regularity. Amicus briefs have also become influential in determining which cases the Court will hear. It thus becomes important to ask: Where do these briefs come from? The traditional tale describes amicus briefs as the product of interest-group lobbying. But that story is incomplete and outdated. Today, skilled and specialized advocates of the Supreme Court Bar strategize about what issues the Court should hear and from whom they should hear them. They then “wrangle” the necessary amici and “whisper” to coordinate the message ...


Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen 2019 William & Mary Law School

Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.


Factual Precedents, Allison Orr Larsen 2019 William & Mary Law School

Factual Precedents, Allison Orr Larsen

Allison Orr Larsen

Lawyers and judges speak to each other in a language of precedents—decisions from cases that have come before. The most persuasive precedent to cite, of course, is an on-point decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. But Supreme Court opinions are changing. They contain more factual claims about the world than ever before, and those claims are now rich with empirical data. This Supreme Court factfinding is also highly accessible; fast digital research leads directly to factual language in old cases that is perfect for arguments in new ones. An unacknowledged consequence of all this is the rise of ...


Judicial Fact-Finding In An Age Of Rapid Change: Creative Reforms From Abroad, Allison Orr Larsen 2019 William & Mary Law School

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

Allison Orr Larsen

No abstract provided.


Digital Commons powered by bepress