Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
An important recent development in the field of statutory interpretation is the emergence of a movement calling for "methodological precedent"--a regime under which courts give precedential effect to interpretive methodology. In such a system, a case would establish not only what a particular statute means but could also establish binding rules of methodology--which tools are valid, in what order, and so on. The movement for methodological precedent has attracted sharp criticism on normative grounds. But both sides of the normative debate agree on the premise that the federal courts generally do not give precedential effect to interpretive methodology today.
This …
We Must Restore Americans' Faith In Our Federal Bench, A. Benjamin Spencer
We Must Restore Americans' Faith In Our Federal Bench, A. Benjamin Spencer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
"Reversed and remanded." Or "vacated and remanded." These familiar words, often found at the end of an appellate decision, emphasize that an appellate court's conclusion that the lower court erred generally does not end the litigation. The power to remand for further proceedings rather than wrap up a case is useful for appellate courts because they may lack the institutional competence to bring the case to a final resolution (as when new factual findings are necessary) or lack an interest in the fact-specific work of applying a newly announced legal standard to the particular circumstances at hand. The modern Supreme …
Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang
Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang
William & Mary Law Review
Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …
The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman
The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman
William & Mary Law Review
The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …
First, We'll Neuter All The Judges, A. Benjamin Spencer
First, We'll Neuter All The Judges, A. Benjamin Spencer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.