Law Commons^™

Some Thoughts On The Study Of Judicial Behavior, Lee Epstein

William & Mary Law Review

Back in the 1940s the political scientist C. Herman Pritchett began tallying the votes and opinions of Supreme Court Justices. His goal was to use data to test the hypothesis that the Justices were not only following the “law,” but were also motivated by their own ideological preferences.

With the hindsight of nearly eighty years, we know that Pritchett’s seemingly small project helped to create a big field: Judicial Behavior, which I take to be the theoretical and empirical study of the choices judges make. Political scientists continue to play a central role, but they are now joined by economists, …

Friendly Precedent, Anthony Niblett, Albert H. Yoon

William & Mary Law Review

This Article explores which legal precedents judges choose to support their decisions.When describing the legal landscape in a written opinion, which precedent do judges gravitate toward? We examine the idea that judges are more likely to cite “friendly” precedent. A friendly precedent, here, is one that was delivered by Supreme Court Justices who have similar political preferences to the lower court judges delivering the opinion. In this Article, we test whether a federal Court of Appeals panel is more likely to engage with binding Supreme Court precedent when the political flavor of that precedent is aligned with the political composition …

The Rhetoric Of Constitutional Absolutism, Eric Berger

William & Mary Law Review

Though constitutional doctrine is famously unpredictable, Supreme Court Justices often imbue their constitutional opinions with a sense of inevitability. Rather than concede that evidence is sometimes equivocal, Justices insist with great certainty that they have divined the correct answer. This Article examines this rhetoric of constitutional absolutism and its place in our broader popular constitutional discourse. After considering examples of the Justices’ rhetorical performances, this Article explores strategic, institutional, and psychological explanations for the phenomenon. It then turns to the rhetoric’s implications, weighing its costs and benefits. This Article ultimately argues that the costs outweigh the benefits and proposes a …

Randomization And Adjudication, Adam M. Samaha

William & Mary Law Review

Flipping a coin to decide a case is among the most serious forms of judicial misconduct. Yet judges react quite differently to other types of lotteries. Judges tend to tolerate or encourage deliberately random decisions in nonjudicial settings ranging from military drafts to experimental welfare requirements. Equally striking, most adjudicators now embrace randomization within their own institutions: they commonly use lotteries to assign incoming cases to each other. This practice creates a remarkable tension. Because adjudicators vary in competence and ideology, randomizing their case assignments will effectively randomize outcomes in a subset of merits decisions. We might then ask whether …

Political Judges And Popular Justice: A Conservative Victory Or A Conservative Dilemma?, George D. Brown

William & Mary Law Review

Most of the judges in America are elected. Yet the institution of the elected judiciary is in trouble, perhaps in crisis. The pressures of campaigning, particularly raising money, have produced an intensity of electioneering that many observers see as damaging to the institution itself. In an extraordinary development, four justices of the Supreme Court recently expressed concern over possible loss of trust in state judicial systems. Yet mechanisms that states have put in place to strike a balance between the accountability values of an elected judiciary and rule of law values of unbiased adjudication are increasingly invalidated by the federal …

Political Judging: When Due Process Goes International, Montré D. Carodine

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court's recent reliance on foreign precedent to interpret the Constitution sparked a firestorm of criticism and spawned a rich debate regarding the extent to which U.S. courts should defer to foreign law when developing U.S. constitutional norms. This Article looks at a subset of the issue of deference to foreign law and international influences in judicial decision making: the extent to which our courts should apply American notions of due process in determining whether to recognize and enforce judgments obtained abroad. Courts reviewing foreign judgments to determine whether they areworthy of recognition have created an "international due process"analysis. …

In A Federal Case, Is The State Constitution Something Important Or Just Another Piece Of Paper?, Randall T. Shepard

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice O'Conner's Dilemma: The Baseline Question, Suzanna Sherry

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Molecular Motions: The Holmesian Judge In Theory And Practice, Thomas C. Grey

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stripped Down Like A Runner Or Enriched By Experience: Bias And Impartiality Of Judges And Jurors, Martha Minow

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Substantive Interests On The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael Wells

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Lesson In Incaution, Overwork, And Fatigue: The Judicial Miscraftsmanship Of Segura V. United States, Joshua Dressler

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.