Law Commons^™

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Congressional Responses To Judicial Decisions, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Abbott Labs V. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The More Things Change: A Psychological Case Against Allowing The Federal Sentencing Guidelines To Stay The Same In Light Of Gall, Kimbrough, And New Understandings Of Reasonableness Review, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In December 2007, through two decisions, the Supreme Court sought to clean up the confusion that it created just shy of three years earlier when it rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory in United States v. Booker and called for circuit courts to begin reviewing sentences for "unreasonableness." In one of those December decisions, Gall v. United States, the Court clarified what it meant by reasonableness review and explained that such review had both a procedural and substantive component. In the other decision, Kimbrough v. United States, the Court gave more meaning to the substantive component, …