Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Judges (14)
- Courts (10)
- In memoriam (10)
- Justice Stevens (10)
- International courts and tribunals (5)
-
- Jurisprudence (5)
- Civil procedure (3)
- Federal judiciary (3)
- Judicial decisionmaking (3)
- Law and politics (3)
- Supreme Court (3)
- Civil rights (2)
- Decisionmaking (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Education (2)
- Empirical (2)
- Empirical Studies (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Federal circuit (2)
- Ideology (2)
- Judge (2)
- Judiciary (2)
- Juries (2)
- Legal realism (2)
- Litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and remedies (2)
- Medical jurisprudence (2)
- Norms (2)
- Oral argument (2)
- Partisanship (2)
- Policy (2)
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 59
Full-Text Articles in Law
Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw
Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw
Northwestern University Law Review
It was once well settled and uncontroversial—reflected in legislative enactments, Executive Branch practice, judicial doctrine, and the broader constitutional culture—that the Constitution imposed limits on government partisanship. This principle was one instantiation of a broader set of rule of law principles: that law is not merely an instrument of political power; that government resources should not be used to further partisan interests, or to damage partisan adversaries.
For at least a century, each branch of the federal government has participated in the development and articulation of this nonpartisanship principle. In the legislative realm, federal statutes beginning with the 1883 Pendleton …
Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang
Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang
Northwestern University Law Review
When the Supreme Court declined to recognize the right to education as one fundamental to liberty, and thus unprotected by the U.S. Constitution, state courts took on the mantle as the next best fora for those yearning for judicial review of inequities present in American public schools. The explicit inclusion of the right to education in each state’s constitution carried the torch of optimism into the late twentieth century. Despite half a century of litigation in the states, the condition of the nation’s public school system remains troubling and perhaps increasingly falls short of expectations. Less competitive on an international …
Are They All Textualists Now?, Austin Peters
Are They All Textualists Now?, Austin Peters
Northwestern University Law Review
Recent developments at the U.S. Supreme Court have rekindled debates over textualism. Missing from the conversation is a discussion of the courts that decide the vast majority of statutory interpretation cases in the United States—state courts. This Article uses supervised machine learning to conduct the first-ever empirical study of the statutory interpretation methods used by state supreme courts. In total, this study analyzes over 44,000 opinions from all fifty states from 1980 to 2019.
This Article establishes several key descriptive findings. First, since the 1980s, textualism has risen rapidly in state supreme court opinions. Second, this rise is primarily attributable …
Hung Out To Try: A Rule 29 Revision To Stop Hung Jury Retrials, Elijah N. Gelman
Hung Out To Try: A Rule 29 Revision To Stop Hung Jury Retrials, Elijah N. Gelman
Northwestern University Law Review
How many times can a defendant be retried? For those facing hung jury retrials, it’s as many times as the government pleases. Double jeopardy prohibitions do not apply when juries fail to reach a verdict.
There is, theoretically, a built-in procedural solution to stop the government from endlessly retrying defendants. Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows judges to acquit defendants when “the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Considering that a hung jury indicates the jurors could not agree on the sufficiency of the evidence, defendants facing hung jury retrials are prime candidates for this …
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
Northwestern University Law Review
The rules of civil procedure depend on norms and conventions that control their application. Civil procedure is a famously rule-based field centered on textual commands in the form of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). There are over eighty rules, hundreds of local judge-made rules, due process doctrines, and statutory rules, too. But written rules are overrated. Deep down, proceduralists know that the application of written rules hinges on broader norms that animate them, expand or constrain them, and even empower judges to ignore them. Unlike the FRCP and related doctrines, these procedural norms are unwritten, sociological, flexible, and …
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum
Northwestern University Law Review
In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.
These cases raise important questions about …
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
Northwestern University Law Review
U.S. courts rely predominately on judicial self-recusal and in-court disclosure to address judicial conflicts of interest and maintain a critical perception of impartiality. But these approaches fail to account for the legal, institutional, and social dynamics that surround the relationship between judges, attorneys, and the adjudicative process. In reality, judges rarely use their discretion to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves, and attorneys do not ask them to do so. If we understand both the legal and extralegal incentives at play in these decisions, none of these outcomes should be surprising. The shortcomings of recusal and disclosure rules are particularly salient …
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
Northwestern University Law Review
The conversation about Supreme Court reform—as important as it is—has obscured another, equally important conversation: the need for lower federal court reform. The U.S. Courts of Appeals have not seen their ranks grow in over three decades. Even then, those additions were stopgap measures built on an appellate triage system that had outsourced much of its work to nonjudicial decision-makers (central judicial staff and law clerks). Those changes born of necessity have now become core features of the federal appellate system, which distributes judicial resources—including oral argument and judicial scrutiny—to a select few. This Article begins to reimagine the courts …
Stepification, Mitchell Chervu Johnston
Stepification, Mitchell Chervu Johnston
Northwestern University Law Review
Multistep tests pervade the law to the point that they appear to be a fundamental feature of legal reasoning. Famous doctrines such as Chevron or qualified immunity take this form, as do more obscure doctrinal formulas. But surprisingly, these doctrinal formulations as a class are relatively new. The reality is that the intellectual moment that gave rise to Chevron was one in which multiple older doctrines that relied on multifactor balancing were replaced by new tests formulated as multistep inquiries in which each step was a discrete inquiry.
This Article provides the first historical and normative account of this phenomenon—which …
City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons: How Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Past Puts A Chokehold On Constitutional Rights In The Present, Peter C. Douglas
City Of Los Angeles V. Lyons: How Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Past Puts A Chokehold On Constitutional Rights In The Present, Peter C. Douglas
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
The United States today has refocused its attention on its continuing struggles with civil rights and police violence—struggles that have always been present but which come to the forefront of the collective consciousness at inflection points like the current one. George Floyd—and uncounted others—die at the hands of the police, and there is, justifiably, outrage and a search for answers. Although the reasons why Black and Brown people are disproportionally subject to unconstitutional police violence are manifold, one reason lies in the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. While many scholars have criticized the Burger …
Criminal Advisory Juries: A Sensible Compromise For Jury Sentencing Advocates, Kurt A. Holtzman
Criminal Advisory Juries: A Sensible Compromise For Jury Sentencing Advocates, Kurt A. Holtzman
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently noted that “juries in our constitutional order exercise supervisory authority over the judicial function by limiting the judge’s power to punish.” Yet in the majority of jurisdictions, contemporary judge-only sentencing practices neuter juries of their supervisory authority by divorcing punishment from guilt decisions. Moreover, without a chance to voice public disapproval at sentencing, juries are muted in their ability to express tailored, moral condemnation for distinct criminal acts. Although the modern aversion to jury sentencing is neither historically nor empirically justified, jury sentencing opponents are rightly cautious of abdicating sentencing power to laypeople. Nevertheless, …
Can There Be Too Much Specialization? Specialization In Specialized Courts, Melissa F. Wasserman, Jonathan D. Slack
Can There Be Too Much Specialization? Specialization In Specialized Courts, Melissa F. Wasserman, Jonathan D. Slack
Northwestern University Law Review
While modern society has embraced specialization, the federal judiciary continues to prize the generalist jurist. This disconnect is at the core of the growing debate on the optimal level of specialization in the judiciary. To date, this discussion has largely revolved around the creation of specialized courts. Opinion specialization, however, provides an alternative, underappreciated method to infuse specialization into the judiciary. In contrast to specialized courts, opinion specialization is understudied and undertheorized.
This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, this Article theorizes whether opinion specialization is a desirable practice. It argues that the practice’s costs and benefits are …
Why Judicial Independence Fails, Aziz Z. Huq
Why Judicial Independence Fails, Aziz Z. Huq
Northwestern University Law Review
Judicial independence seems under siege. President Trump condemns federal courts for their political bias; his erstwhile presidential opponents mull various court-packing plans; and courts, in turn, are lambasted for abandoning a long-held constitutional convention against institutional manipulation. At the same time, across varied lines of jurisprudence, the Roberts Court evinces a deep worry about judicial independence. This preoccupation with threats to judicial independence infuses recent opinions on administrative deference, bankruptcy, patent adjudication, and jurisdiction-stripping. Yet the Court has not offered a single, overarching definition of what it means by the term “judicial independence.” Nor has it explained how its disjointed …
The Promise Of Senior Judges, Marin K. Levy
The Promise Of Senior Judges, Marin K. Levy
Northwestern University Law Review
Judges, lawmakers, and scholars have long debated whether the federal courts of appeals are understaffed and, if so, how Congress should go about redressing that fact. Even though there is currently a strong argument that some new judgeships should be created, such a path presents logistical complications. If a significant number of seats are added to the appellate bench, circuits may eventually become too large to function well. And if a significant number of circuits are ultimately split, the total number of federal appellate courts may become too large for the judiciary as a whole to function well. Furthermore, there …
An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris
An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal jury pools must reflect a fair cross section of the community in which a crime is prosecuted and from which no distinct group in the community is excluded. The community in which a crime is prosecuted varies widely in Indian country based on legislative reforms enacted by Congress to strip indigenous populations of their inherent sovereignty. Under the Major Crimes Act, the federal government has the right to adjudicate all serious crimes committed by one American Indian against another American Indian or non-Indian within Indian country. American Indian defendants under …
Avoiding Judicial Discipline, Veronica Root Martinez
Avoiding Judicial Discipline, Veronica Root Martinez
Northwestern University Law Review
Over the past several years, several high-profile complaints have been levied against Article III judges alleging improper conduct. Many of these complaints, however, were dismissed without investigation after the judge in question removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the circuit’s judicial council—oftentimes through retirement and once through elevation to the Supreme Court. When judges—the literal arbiters of justice within American society—are able to elude oversight of their own potential misconduct, it puts the legitimacy of the judiciary and the rule of law in jeopardy.
This Essay argues that it is imperative that mechanisms are adopted that will ensure investigations into …
On Sexual Harassment In The Judiciary, Leah M. Litman, Deeva Shah
On Sexual Harassment In The Judiciary, Leah M. Litman, Deeva Shah
Northwestern University Law Review
This Essay examines the legal profession’s role in sexual harassment, particularly in the federal courts. It argues that individuals in the profession have both an individual and collective responsibility for the professional norms that have allowed harassment to happen with little recourse for the people subject to the harassment. It suggests that the legal profession should engage in a sustained, public reflection about how our words, actions, attitudes, and institutional arrangements allow harassment to happen, and about the many different ways that we can prevent and address harassment.
Screened Out Of Housing: The Impact Of Misleading Tenant Screening Reports And The Potential For Criminal Expungement As A Model For Effectively Sealing Evictions, Katelyn Polk
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Having an eviction record “blacklists” tenants from finding future housing. Even renters with mere eviction filings—not eviction orders—on their records face the harsh collateral consequences of eviction. This Note argues that eviction records should be sealed at filing and only released into the public record if a landlord prevails in court. Juvenile record expungement mechanisms in Illinois serve as a model for one way to protect people with eviction records. Recent updates to the Illinois juvenile expungement process provided for the automatic expungement of certain records and strengthened the confidentiality protections of juvenile records. Illinois protects juvenile records because it …
Sixty-Five Oral Arguments Were Not Enough: A Tribute To Justice Stevens From Across The Bench, Carter G. Phillips
Sixty-Five Oral Arguments Were Not Enough: A Tribute To Justice Stevens From Across The Bench, Carter G. Phillips
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judging And Baseball, Merritt E. Mcalister
Judging And Baseball, Merritt E. Mcalister
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
"The Function Of The Independent Lawyer As A Guardian Of Our Freedom": The Great Stevens Dissent In Walters, Andrew Koppelman
"The Function Of The Independent Lawyer As A Guardian Of Our Freedom": The Great Stevens Dissent In Walters, Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
In Memoriam, Hannah Mullen
Price-Fixing In The Motion Picture Industry, John Paul Stevens
Price-Fixing In The Motion Picture Industry, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Is Justice Irrelevant?, John Paul Stevens
Is Justice Irrelevant?, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Paradox Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
The Paradox Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Sonja R. West, Dahlia Lithwick
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Introductory Comment, Seventy-Fifth Volume, John Paul Stevens
Introductory Comment, Seventy-Fifth Volume, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Monopoly Or Monopolization––A Reply To Professor Rostow, Edward R. Johnston, John Paul Stevens
Monopoly Or Monopolization––A Reply To Professor Rostow, Edward R. Johnston, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Personal History Of The Law Review, John Paul Stevens
A Personal History Of The Law Review, John Paul Stevens
Northwestern University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Deliberation And Decision-Making Process In The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights: Do Individual Opinions Matter?, Ranieri L. Resende
Deliberation And Decision-Making Process In The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights: Do Individual Opinions Matter?, Ranieri L. Resende
Northwestern Journal of Human Rights
The work is focused on the adjudicatory nature of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and investigates its model of deliberation, considering three basic schemes: per curiam, seriatim and hybrid. In order to identify an institutional pattern, the importance of individual opinions is analyzed through the quantitative performance of each category of judge (ad hoc and regular), as well as each type of adjudicative activity (judgments and advisory opinions). The quantitative data is also useful to better understand the explicit assimilation of separate opinions to the core reasoning of future cases. As a result, it has been possible to identify …
Managing Digital Discovery In Criminal Cases, Jenia I. Turner
Managing Digital Discovery In Criminal Cases, Jenia I. Turner
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
The burdens and challenges of discovery—especially electronic discovery—are usually associated with civil, not criminal cases. This is beginning to change. Already common in white-collar crime cases, voluminous digital discovery is increasingly a feature of ordinary criminal prosecutions.
This Article examines the explosive growth of digital evidence in criminal cases and the efforts to manage its challenges. It then advances three claims about criminal case discovery in the digital age. First, the volume, complexity, and cost of digital discovery will incentivize the prosecution and the defense to cooperate more closely in cases with significant amounts of electronically stored information (ESI). Second, …