Law Commons^™

"Knock And Talk" And The Fourth Amendment, Craig M. Bradley

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Retribution's Role, John Bronsteen

Indiana Law Journal

Two main types of principle, retributive and consequentialist, have long been identified as the main approaches to justifying criminal punishment. Retributivists deem punishment justified by the wrongdoing of the offender, whereas utilitarians deem it justified by its good consequences such as deterring future crime. Over the past fifty years, each has spent decades as the dominant theory, and many hybrid theories have also been advanced. But few, if any, of the hybrid approaches have valued heavily both retributive and consequentialist considerations while locating the particular justificatory role each category plays. This Article points in that direction by reframing the central …

The European Court Of Human Rights And The Freedom Of Expression, Jean-François Flauss

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: An Ocean Apart? Freedom of Expression in Europe and the United States. This Article was originally written in French and delivered as a conference paper at a symposium held by the Center for American Law of the University of Paris II (Panthèon-Assas) on January 18-19, 2008.

Toward A Coherent Test For Disparate Impact Discrimination, Jennifer L. Peresie

Indiana Law Journal

Statistics are generally plaintiffs' primary evidence in establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. Thus, the use, or misuse, of statistics dictates case outcomes. Lacking a coherent test for disparate impact, courts choose between the two prevailing tests, statistical significance and the four-fifths rule, in deciding cases, and these tests frequently produce opposite results. Litigants thus face considerable uncertainty and the risk that a judge's preferred outcome will dictate which test is applied. This Article recognizes that the two tests perform complementary functions that both play a useful role in determining whether liability should be imposed. statistical significance …

Revisiting Prosecutorial Disclosure, Alafair S. Burke

Indiana Law Journal

After the exoneration of more than 200 people based on post-conviction DNA evidence, a growing movement against wrongful convictions has called increased attention to the prosecutorial suppression of material exculpatory evidence. Commentators frequently study prosecutorial failures to disclose as a form of intentional misconduct, coloring both the description of the problem and the recommended solutions. This Article, in contrast, explores how even ethical prosecutors might fail to disclose exculpatory evidence because off laws in the Brady doctrine itself-specifically, the Court's limitation of the doctrine to "material" exculpatory evidence. The materiality standard amplifies cognitive biases that distort even an ethical prosecutor's …

The Lost Meaning Of The Jury Trial Right, Laura I. Appleman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

An Essay On The Emergence Of Constitutional Courts: The Cases Of Mexico And Columbia, Miguel Schor

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

This essay explores the emergence of the Mexican Supreme Court and the Colombian Constitutional Court as powerful political actors. Mexico and Colombia undertook constitutional transformations designed to empower their respective national high courts in the 1990s to facilitate a democratic transition. These constitutional transformations opened up political space for the Mexican Supreme Court and the Colombian Constitutional Court to begin to displace political actors in the tasks of constitutional construction and maintenance.

These two courts play different roles, however, in their respective democratic orders. Mexico chose to empower its Supreme Court to police vertical and horizontal separation of powers whereas …

Rethinking Judicial Deference To Legislation Fact-Finding, Caitlin E. Borgmann

Indiana Law Journal

It is traditionally assumed that the role of ascertaining and evaluating the social facts underlying a statute belongs to the legislatures. The courts in turn are tasked with deciding the law and must defer to legislative fact-finding on relevant issues of social fact. This simplistic formula, however, does not accurately describe the courts' confused approach to legislative fact-finding. Although the courts often speak in terms of deference, they follow no consistent or predictable pattern in deciding whether to defer in a given case. Moreover, blanket judicial deference to legislative fact-finding would not be a wise general rule. Because social fact-finding …

Understanding The Paradoxical Case Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This is an article about the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its curious handling by the U.S. Supreme Court. When the Court examines the constitutionality of the Act, for example, it blindly defers to the work of Congress, unwilling to subject the statute to any meaningful scrutiny. In contrast, this posture of deference for questions of constitutional law differs greatly from the Court’s posture when interpreting the language of the statute. This is an area where the Court defers to no one, even when the text of the statute or the clear intent of Congress demands a different outcome. …

Midwestern Juvenile Drug Courts: Analysis & Recommendations, Nicole A. Kozdron

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientific Avoidance: Toward More Principled Judicial Review Of Legislative Science, Emily H. Meazell

Indiana Law Journal

Courts increasingly confront legislative enactments made in light of scientific uncertainty. Even so, the degree of deference appropriate to this type of judicial review is a moving target, seemingly determined on an ad hoc, unprincipled basis. On one hand, the decision of how to legislate in light of scientific uncertainty is quintessentially one of policy, suggesting that the highest degree of deference is appropriate. But certain classes of cases, and certain types of scientific questions, seem singularly inappropriate for extreme judicial deference. While significant scholarly attention has focused on the comparative institutional competence of courts and legislatures with respect to …

Judicial Activism And Fourteenth Amendment Privacy Claims: The Allure Of Originalism And The Unappreciated Promise Of Constrained Nonoriginalism, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Among other meanings, "judicial activism" can be defined as judicial decisionmaking that frustrates majoritarian self-government and that is unconstrained by law. So understood, judicial activism is presumptively problematic, because it frustrates customary democratic and judicial norms.

In this essay, I address originalist and nonoriginalist responses to the presumptive problem of judicial activism in the context of Fourteenth Amendment privacy claims, including claims relating to abortion, sexual conduct, and same-sex marriage. I argue that originalism is an overrated solution, largely because current understandings of originalism, despite claims to the contrary, do not provide standards of decision that are sufficiently clear to …

Insider Trading And The Gradual Demise Of Fiduciary Principles, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Recent SEC enforcement actions, such as the case filed against Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban, raise the question whether deception by a fiduciary is essential to the Rule 10b-5 insider trading offense. Under the Supreme Court's classical and misappropriation theories, the answer is clearly yes - each theory has a fiduciary principle at its core. Yet lower courts and the SEC frequently disregard the Court's explicit dictates, and a consensus is emerging that insider trading rests simply on the wrongful use of material nonpublic information, regardless of whether a fiduciary-like duty is breached. Although this view of insider trading can …

"Trap"Ing Roe In Indiana And A Common-Ground Alternative, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Public discourse over abortion overwhelmingly focuses on whether the Supreme Court will overrule Roe v. Wade and states will again ban abortion. But at least since 1992, when the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe's "central holding," certain moderate- sounding abortion restrictions - sometimes framed as reasonable compromise regulations - have posed a greater threat to women's reproductive health and liberty. This Essay examines one increasingly popular form of restriction: laws that regulate providers of abortion services in the name of advancing women's health, without actual health justification. Little-noted efforts to enact such restrictions in Indiana, during the …

Leaving The Thicket At Last?, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Laura Jane Durfee

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Across the spectrum of ideas debated within the law of democracy, the view is nearly unanimous that the Justices must lead the way toward a better democracy. And yet, as we argue in this Essay, the Court’s handling of the problems since its initial intervention in Baker v. Carr has been nothing short of a mess. Debates in this area offer modern instances of a Court that cares little about doctrinal consistency and judicial craftsmanship, of Justices that care less about compromise and common ground and more about expressing their deeply held views about politics, democracy, and the law. In …

Shadow Precedents And The Separation Of Powers: Statutory Interpretation Of Congressional Overrides, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In both judicial decisions and critical commentary on statutory interpretation, the possibility of congressional override is generally considered a significant balance to the countermajoritarian reality that courts, through statutory interpretation, make policy. This Article demonstrates that the "check" on judicial power provided by overrides is not as robust as is typically assumed. One might assume that overridden precedents are functionally erased or reversed. But because Congress technically cannot overrule a prior decision, courts must determine whether the enactment of an override fully supersedes the prior judicial interpretation. Overrides thus raise unique, and previously largely ignored, questions of statutory interpretation. Using …