Law Commons^™

Crown Attorneys, The Attorney General, And Judicial Discipline: A Comment On Lauzon V Ontario (Justices Of The Peace Review Council), Andrew Flavelle Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Should the consequences for judicial misconduct be different depending solely on the identity of the person who makes a complaint? In a surprising decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lauzon v Ontario (Justices of the Peace Review Council) holds that dispositions downstream from complaints by Crown attorneys (or any other member of the executive branch of government) should be lower than other dispositions because the vindication of such complaints is inherently dangerous to judicial independence and the separation of powers. In this comment, I look closely at the reasoning in Lauzon and respectfully suggest that that reasoning is problematic. …

A Neo-Federalist View Of The Supreme Court’S Docket: Analyzing Case Selection And Ideological Alignment, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

For more than 70 years, scholars have engaged in an intense debate over a core constitutional question: what restraints does the Constitution place on Congress’s power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts? Far less attention has been given to an equally important real-life question: how does the operation of the jurisdiction, as defined by Congress and the Supreme Court, comport with the assigned role of the federal courts in the system of government established by the Constitution? This Article takes a novel approach: it draws on constitutional theory to devise a set of tools for addressing the operational …

Selling And Abandoning Legal Rights, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Legal rights impose concomitant legal burdens. This paper considers the valuation and disposition of legal rights, and legal burdens, when courts cannot be relied upon to perfectly enforce rights. Because courts do not perfectly enforce rights, victims suffer some loss in the value of their rights depending on the degree of underenforcement. The welfare implications of trading away and abandoning rights are examined. Victims do not necessarily trade away rights when and only when such trade is socially desirable. Relatively pessimistic victims (who believe
their rights are weaker than injurers do) trade away rights too cheaply. Extremely pessimistic victims abandon …

Panel Discussion 4: Best Practices In Representing Children In Court, Timothy Irwin, Carlton Lewis, Dwight Stokes

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Ethical Guardrails To Unbounded Procedure, Seth Katsuya Endo

Fordham Law Review

Civil lawsuits in federal courts—especially class actions and multidistrict litigation (MDL)—can be messy and complicated, calling for pragmatic interventions that lie beyond what is explicitly addressed by the existing rules. And flexibility is part of the genius of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, unbounded discretion and innovation in procedure can lead to illegitimate exercises of power, bias, democratic nonaccountability, and other serious harms. But the choice is not between providing individual courts with nearly limitless authority to experiment with procedure or having a set of rigid rules. Instead, there is a third path: district judges …

Contempt: The Original Judicial Cheat Code, Ryan L. Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The judicial contempt power challenges the fundamental rights enshrined in America’s Constitution. Imagine spending eight years in federal prison with no right to a jury trial or a court appointed attorney. Your only reprieve is the discretion of the judge who is imprisoning you. Meaningful appeals and even habeas corpus actions are generally not available remedies. Instead, what was originally justified as an inherent power of the court, necessary to maintain order and decorum, is increasingly used for trivial offenses or to incarcerate individuals for far longer than their possible crimes would otherwise warrant.

Despite widespread instances of abuse of …

The Scales Project: Making Federal Court Records Free, David L. Schwartz, Kat M. Albrecht, Adam R. Pah, Christopher A. Cotropia, Amy Kristin Sanders, Sarath Sanga, Charlotte S. Alexander, Luís A.N. Amaral, Zachary D. Clopton, Anne M. Tucker, Thomas W. Gaylord, Scott G. Daniel, Nathan Dahlberg

Northwestern University Law Review

Federal court records have been available online for nearly a quarter century, yet they remain frustratingly inaccessible to the public. This is due to two primary barriers: (1) the federal government’s prohibitively high fees to access the records at scale and (2) the unwieldy state of the records themselves, which are mostly text documents scattered across numerous systems. Official datasets produced by the judiciary, as well as third-party data collection efforts, are incomplete, inaccurate, and similarly inaccessible to the public. The result is a de facto data blackout that leaves an entire branch of the federal government shielded from empirical …

Lawyerless Litigants, Filing Fees, Transaction Costs, And The Federal Courts: Learning From Scales, Judith Resnik, Henry Wu, Jenn Dikler, David T. Wong, Romina Lilollari, Claire Stobb, Elizabeth Beling, Avital Fried, Anna Selbrede, Jack Sollows, Mikael Tessema, Julia Udell

Northwestern University Law Review

Two Latin phrases describing litigants—pro se (for oneself) and in forma pauperis (IFP, as a poor person)—prompt this inquiry into the relationship between self-representation and requests for filing fee waivers. We sketch the governing legal principles for people seeking relief in the federal courts, the sources of income of the federal judiciary, the differing regimes to which Congress has subjected incarcerated and nonincarcerated people filing civil lawsuits, and analyses enabled by SCALES, a newly available database that coded 2016 and 2017 federal court docket sheets. This Essay’s account of what can be learned and of the data gaps demonstrates the …

Decision Time: Illuminating Performance In India’S District Courts, Varsha Aithala, Anushka Sachan, Srijoni Sen, Himanshu Payal, Chiranjib Bhattacharya

Articles

Studies on court administration in India have so far focused their attention largely on caseload management and judge strength of the higher judiciary. In-depth investigations of the performance of India’s lower courts, the primary loci of a citizen’s contact with the judiciary, are rarer, largely due to the lack of available data at scale. We conduct a quantitative analysis of a large dataset of more than 1700 Indian district courts between 2010 and 2018, to assess court performance through the measure of timeliness of case disposal. We use median days to decision—the median number of days it takes for a …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rwu School Of Law Social Justice Camp, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

First Amendment And Media Law Diversity Moot Court Competition, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michelle Choate

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Law School News: Mandell-Boisclair Justice Camp Prepares Young Scholars To Become Future Lawyers, Social Justice Advocates 7-26-2024, Jordan J. Phelan, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars In Alabama V. California, Supreme Court Of The United States, No. 158, Original, Arthur D. Hellman, F. Andrew Hessick, Derek T. Muller, Robert J. Pushaw

Amici Briefs

This amicus brief was submitted to the United States Supreme Court in support of the motion by Alabama and other states to file a bill of complaint against California and other states under the Court’s original jurisdiction. The brief addresses one issue alone: it argues that under Article III of the Constitution and section 1251 of the Judicial Code, the Court has a duty to exercise its exclusive, original jurisdiction over actions in which one state brings suit against another state. The brief takes no position on any other procedural or merits issues that may be raised by the motion …

Sotomayor Cites Maurer Faculty Member In Scotus’ Decline To Hear Alabama Bite Mark Case, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

The case of an Alabama man convicted of murdering his wife in 1985 will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, despite evidence that, nearly 40 years later, has been “wholly discredited.”

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of McCrory v. Alabama, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited research from Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Valena Beety in her concurring agreement with the court’s decision.

Charles M. McCrory was convicted for the murder of his wife, Julie Bonds, based in large part on expert testimony from an odontologist who matched McCrory’s teeth to two bite marks …

Filling The Red State Federal Judicial Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Texas A&M Law Review

District vacancies without nominees that plague red jurisdictions deserve emphasis in this Essay for several reasons. First, there are myriad district court jurists who trigger greater numbers of empty posts when they assume senior status, retire, or die, which triggers more issues. Legislators have created 677 active trial court positions, which dwarf the 179 active court of appeals judicial posts. The trial courts are tribunals of last resort for most cases; their numerous jurists are the only court members that many litigants encounter, and significantly more district court openings lack nominees. In contrast, appellate courts explicitly articulate considerable policy, include …

Schrodinger's Dissent: The Hybrid Authority Of A Dissenting Opinion, Christina Frohock

Articles

A dissenting opinion is the Schrodinger's cat of authorities: both the law and not the law simultaneously. Courts and scholars often clarify that a dissenting opinion is not binding. Outside the universe of precedent, that authority defies easy description. Emerging from the pen of a judge wearing a black robe and acting in an official capacity, a dissenting opinion exhibits the form of the law. Yet, beneath that lofty sheen, a dissent exhibits the substance of commentary. A dissenting judge writes to undercut the law, providing a case law coda. This Article describes the traditional categories of authority, primary and …

20th Annual Diversity Symposium Dinner 3-26-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Problems With Authority, Amy J. Griffin

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Judicial decision-making rests on a foundation of unwritten rules—those that govern the weight of authority. Such rules, including the cornerstone principle of stare decisis, are created informally through the internal social practices of the judiciary. Because weight-of-authority rules are largely informal and almost entirely unwritten, we lack a comprehensive account of their content. This raises serious questions—sounding in due process and access to justice—about whether judicial decision-making rests ultimately on judges’ arbitrary and unexamined preferences rather than transparent and deliberative processes. These norms of authority are largely invisible to many, including parties appearing before the courts. They govern the …

Courting Oblivion Part I: How To Predicate An Act Of Oblivion On The Right To Move On, Joshua J. Schroeder

Cleveland State Law Review

This is the opener of the three-part Courting Oblivion series on the legal concept of oblivion, meaning legal forgetfulness, letting go of the past, or forgiveness, usually to predicate a second chance, a restart, or even an era of reconstruction. This Article opens the Courting Oblivion series by demonstrating how blind-deaf concepts of justice are fundamentally ignorant of the rights and powers of oblivion. The series’ second and third parts will explain more about how acts of oblivion can secure governmental legitimacy and why oblivion needs to be enacted for whistleblowers generally.

This Article defines the legal concept of oblivion …

Beyond The Borders: The Rise Of Judicial Corruption And Universal Jurisdiction, Rose Mahdavieh

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Washington Civil Jury Trials Via Zoom: Perspectives From The Bench, Marisa Pasnick

Washington Law Review

Many professions have felt the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including the legal field. At the onset of COVID-19, many courthouses closed and trials halted, but as the pandemic continued, the need to resume judicial proceedings led courts to turn to virtual platforms to conduct civil jury trials. This Comment examines the response of judges in Washington State to the use of Zoom for conducting civil jury trials. Interviews with judges across Washington reveal a stark contrast in opinions among judges in different districts as well as within districts. This Comment answers the question of how judges feel about …

Judicial Discipline Through The Prism Of Public Law Values: A Critical Analysis Of Bill C-9, An Act To Reform The Judges Act, Richard Devlin, Sheila Wildeman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Bill C-9 is the first legislative reform to the Judges Act in five decades. The goal of the legislation is to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice by modernizing the complaints and discipline system for federally appointed judges. In a previous essay published in Volume ?? of the Advocates’ Quarterly we offered a normative framework for assessment of a complaints and discipline system and identified seven key strengths of Bill C-9. In this sequel, we continue to apply this normative framework and argue that the legislation is marred by five significant weaknesses. We conclude that because the reforms …

Cover, Table Of Contents & Masthead, Mariam Antony

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Egypt’S Legal Modernism: Challenging The National Discourse, Mohamed A. El-Deeb

Theses and Dissertations

Egypt’s legal modernity is the story of the modern Egyptian state itself. Reforming the country’s judiciary in the late nineteenth century was meant to achieve ambitious aims beyond the functionality of a justice system. The utmost goal was the country’s independence from the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. The judicial reforms modernized the Egyptian state and built a judiciary and legal community like no other place. Egypt achieved its independent judiciary before gaining its political independence. That was a remarkable achievement of the judicial reform. That rich part of Egypt’s modern history is negated and disregarded from public awareness. Not …

Houston, We Have A Problem: The D.C. Circuit Closes Pathway To National Judicial Review In Sierra Club V. Environmental Protection Agency, Alison O. Moyer

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

University of Cincinnati Law Review

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

In Conversation About The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’S New Mass Atrocity Prevention Training, Tatiana Varanko, Ann O’Rourke

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

An Apt Analogy?: Rethinking The Role Of Judicial Deference To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Post-Kisor, Amy Walker

Fordham Law Review

Since its inception in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) has struggled to garner and maintain a sense of legitimacy among federal judges. The tension is both a story about competing expertise between judges and the Commission and competing values, namely uniformity and individuality. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stinson v. United States prioritized uniformity by telling lower courts to treat the Commission as they would any other administrative agency. Lower courts—for the most part—faithfully executed this directive until 2019, when the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie gave them another option, one that seemed to leave …

Governance And Islam In East Africa: Muslims And The State In Kenya And Tanzania, Farouk Topan, Kai Kresse, Erin E. Stiles, Hassan Mwakimako

Exploring Muslim Contexts

Explores the relationship between Muslim communities and the State in East Africa in political, institutional and legal contexts

• Focuses on the relationship between Muslims and the State in Kenya and Tanzania
• Asks which factors, both within and outside the Muslim community, shape and affect this relationship in contemporary times
• Presents 13 case studies exploring governance issues within and across the categories of politics, institutions and law in Kenya and Tanzania
• Identifies cross-cutting issues of governance and Muslim communities which are relevant beyond East Africa

Recent studies of Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania have tended either to examine governance of Muslims …