Law Commons^™

Aiding And Abetting Under The Antiterrorism Act: Despite Statutory Silence, Why Extending Liability To Aiders And Abettors Of International Terrorism Furthers Congressional Intent To Compensate Plaintiffs And Defeat Terrorist Financial Pathways, Jesse Snyder

Jesse Snyder

No abstract provided.

Labor Disputes In Professional Sports: How Federal Judges Referee Antitrust Lawsuits-- False Starts And Technical Fouls, Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Using a database of 83 published court opinions from 1970-2011, I show that players have utilized conflicting federal laws to improve their labor market mobility. They formed unions under the National Labor Relations Act, and bargained collectively with leagues. Often, however, they lacked bargaining power to modify the draft or reserve clause, which bound them to a team. Players sued, therefore, under the Sherman Act to challenge these practices as restraints of trade. Thus, players have used a dual engagement strategy of bargaining with leagues under the NLRA while holding identical negotiations under the threat of Sherman Act treble damages. …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

What Should Guide Determinations Of Foreign Official Immunity In Us Courts After Samantar?, Chris C. Morley

Chris C Morley

In the recent Samantar decision, the Supreme Court held that individual foreign officials were not covered by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act but might still be covered by common law immunity. This article analyzes the extent of that common law immunity and discusses whether more recent developments in domestic and international human rights law should impact the availability of immunity for officials accused of torture, extra-judicial killings, and other violations of the law of nations.

Although the bulk of authority from US and foreign courts suggests that foreign officials should enjoy immunity for acts committed within the scope of their …

Incommensurability, Practices And Points Of View: Revitalizing H.La. Hart’S Practice Theory Of Rules, Eric J. Miller

Eric J. Miller

The standard reading of H.L.A. Hart’s practice theory of rules is that it failed to provide a sufficient normative basis for a theory of law. That standard reading rests upon a significant misunderstanding: that Hart has an exclusionary reason approach to law. Instead, Hart understands law to be a social practice, one capable of generating valid norms that not only block the operation of moral norms, but which are wholesale incommensurable with them.

Wholesale incommensurability entails that law, as a form of social practice, constitutes a discrete normative system in which the truth-conditions of legal propositions are distinct from the …

Civil Protective Orders In Integrated Domestic Violence Court: An Empirical Study, Erika Rickard

Erika Rickard

New York's Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court was created to streamline the judicial process and promote efficiency and victim safety in cases of domestic violence. One would expect this collaboration and concerted effort on improving the justice system for victims of domestic violence would yield faster results than under the traditional system. The data presented here indicate just the opposite: IDV Courts take longer to address motions for civil protective orders, and are not significantly more likely to grant such orders than traditional matrimonial courts. Delays in the civil protective order process suggest that the problem-solving court may not be …

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: A Comparison Of Medical Malpractice Trials In North Carolina And Virginia, 2000-2010i, Ralph Peeples, Catherine Harris

Ralph Peeples

The paper begins with an abstract. Please see the manuscript.

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Girardeau A Spann

"Advisory Adjudication" uses the recent Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene as a takeoff point to discuss the way in which inconsistent demands make our conception of judicial review incoherent. In Camreta, the Supreme Court paradoxically issued an advisory opinion in the process of holding that it did not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions. I argue that this illustrates the manner in which we want the Supreme Court to act as a prospective policymaking body in a tricameral legislative process, while simultaneously insisting that the Court pretend merely to be engaged in the process of retrospective dispute-resolution. I …

From Proving Pretext To Proving Discrimination: The Real Lesson Of Miller-El And Synder, Joshua Polster

Joshua Polster

In determining whether prosecutors have discriminated in their use of peremptory challenges, courts generally focus on whether defendants are able to prove that the nondiscriminatory reasons that prosecutors proffer for their challenges are pretextual. This focus is a natural result of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which the Supreme Court adopted for peremptory challenges from employment discrimination law. This Article argues that because of differences between jury selection and employment, the methods that employees use to prove pretext are not suited to peremptory challenges. Accordingly, while lower courts generally have interpreted two recent Supreme Court cases—Miller-El v. Dretke and Snyder v. …

Who’S Better At Defending Criminals? Does Type Of Defense Attorney Matter In Terms Of Producing Favorable Case Outcomes, Thomas H. Cohen

Thomas Cohen

The role of defense counsel in criminal cases constitutes a topic of substantial importance for judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scholars, and policymakers. What types of defense counsel (e.g., public defenders, privately retained attorneys, or assigned counsel) represent defendants in criminal cases and how do these defense counsel types perform in terms of securing favorable outcomes for their clients? These and other issues are addressed in this article analyzing felony case processing data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Specifically, this paper examines whether there are differences between defense counsel type and the adjudication and sentencing phases of criminal case …

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Abigail R. Moncrieff

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into the structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism is surprising, however, given that judges frequently choose indirect methods, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation, for protecting substantive constitutional values. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another recently theorized as …

Book Review Of Current Issues In Constitutional Litigation: A Context And Practice Casebook (Carolina Academic Press 2011), Christy Whitfield

Sarah E. Ricks

This is a book review of Current Issues in Constitutional Litigation: A Context & Practice Casebook (Carolina Academic Press 2011). My perspective is unique because I have worked with and watched this casebook evolve – I was assigned an early draft of the casebook as a law school student taking a constitutional litigation course, I worked as a research assistant on a later version of the casebook, and now, several years later, I have viewed the final result of the casebook as a practicing attorney. As a former law clerk and now as an attorney advisor in the beginning years …

The Reality Of Eu-Conformity Review In France, Juscelino F. Colares

Juscelino F. Colares

French High Courts embraced review of national legislation for conformity with EU law in different stages and following distinct approaches to EU law supremacy. This article tests whether adherence to different views on EU law supremacy has resulted in different levels of EU directive enforcement by the French High Courts. After introducing the complex French systems of statutory, treaty and constitutional review, this study explains how EU-conformity review emerged among these systems and provides an empirical analysis refuting the anecdotal view that different EU supremacy theories produce substantial differences in conformity adjudication outcomes. These Courts' uniformly high rates of EU …

"Not That Smart": Sonia Sotomayor And The Construction Of Merit, Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr., Mitu G. Gulati Mr., Daniel L. Chen Dr.

Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr.

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such …

The Dialectic Of Obscenity, Brian L. Frye

Brian L Frye

The story of Flaming Creatures and the so-called “Fortas Film Festival” illustrates the dialectic of obscenity. When President Johnson nominated Justice Fortas to replace Chief Justice Warren in 1968, Fortas’s opponents investigated his record, hoping to justify a filibuster. Among other things, they discovered Jacobs v. New York, in which Fortas alone voted to reverse obscenity convictions for showing Flaming Creatures, an obscure art film that featured a transvestite orgy. Senator Thurmond showed Flaming Creatures to several senators, convinced them to join the filibuster, and blocked the Fortas nomination. Under the dialectic of obscenity, art protects pornography and pornography protects …

Judicial Intervention As Risk Reduction, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Juliet P Kostritsky

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AS RISK REDUCTION J. P. Kostritsky Employing an economics-based consequentialist approach to contract interpretation (focusing on the prospective effect and the factors that might justify intervention) this Article attempts to identify the precise parameters of an optimal framework for contract interpretation. Such a framework would seek to maximize gains from trade. The issue in such cases is always, given the words the parties used, what is the best (surplus maximizing) interpretation of the bargain. Courts can achieve that interpretation by, in part, minimizing the interpretive risk that parties face when they draft an express contract but fail to …

New Evidence On Appeal, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Appellate review is limited, almost by definition, to consideration of the factual record as established in the trial court. Adhering to this record review principle, appellate courts generally reject out of hand any effort to supplement the appellate record with evidence that was not considered by the court below.

There are, however, exceptions to this traditional principle. Whether presented through amicus briefs, social-science-laden “Brandeis Briefs,” petitions for discretionary review, or other mechanisms for supplementing the record, appellate courts often consider and rely upon new evidence. The literature regarding both the traditional rule and the exceptions is limited, and neither courts …

Economic Evolution, Jurisdictional Revolution, Dustin Buehler

Dustin Buehler

In June 2011, the Supreme Court issued its first personal jurisdiction decision in two decades. In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, the Court considered whether the placement of a product in the “stream of commerce” subjects a nonresident manufacturer to personal jurisdiction in states where the product is distributed. The Court issued a fractured opinion with no majority rule, with some justices expressing reluctance to “refashion basic jurisdictional rules” without additional information on “modern-day consequences.” This Article explores the consequences of these rules by providing the first law-and-economics analysis of personal jurisdiction. A descriptive analysis initially demonstrates that jurisdictional …

The Second-Class Class Action: How Courts Thwart Wage Rights By Misapplying Class Action Rules, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Scott A Moss

Courts apply to wage rights cases an aggressive scrutiny that not only disadvantages low-wage workers, but is fundamentally incorrect on the law. Rule 23 class actions automatically cover all potential members if the court grants plaintiffs’ class certification motion. But for certain employment rights cases – mainly wage claims but also age discrimination and gender equal pay claims – 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows not class actions but “collective actions” covering just those opting in affirmatively. Courts in collective actions assume a gatekeeper role as they do in Rule 23 class action, disallowing many actions by requiring a certification motion …

Beyond Saints And Sinners: Discretion And The Need For New Narratives In The U.S. Immigration System, Elizabeth Keyes

Elizabeth Keyes

This article examines the forces affecting the exercise of discretion in American immigration courts, and argues that in this present age of immigration anxiety, the same facts that place an individual in deportation proceedings may constitute the reasons a judge will, relying on discretion, deny them relief for which they are otherwise eligible. The article explores the polarized narratives told about “good” and ”bad” immigrants, the exceptionally difficult task of adjudicating in overburdened immigration courts, and the ways in which these polarized narratives interact with psychological short-cuts, or heuristics, that affect judicial exercises of discretion. After engaging in this analysis, …

Applying Constitutional Decision Rules Versus Invalidating Statutes In Toto: An Alternative To Rosenkranz’S Approach To Facial, As-Applied, And Overbreadth Adjudication, Misha Tseytlin, Scott Keller

Misha Tseytlin

Nicholas Rosenkranz has recently proposed a model of judicial review for dealing with facial and as-applied challenges. This model argues that “facial” challenges necessarily apply to suits against legislative actions and, where successful, lead to total invalidation of the statutory provision at issue; whereas “as-applied” challenges are as-executed challenges to executive conduct and can only lead to vindication of the litigant’s rights in the case at issue. This Article explains that there is a fundamental flaw in Rosenkranz’s approach—a flaw often repeated by other scholars and that has caused serious confusion among judges: the failure to differentiate between the object …

A Farewell To Harms: Presuming Irreparable Injury In Constitutional Litigation, Anthony Disarro

Anthony DiSarro

Although it is an essential element to obtaining injunctive relief, most federal circuit courts have held that irreparable injury can be presumed in constitutional cases. The Supreme Court has not addressed a presumption of irreparable harm in the constitutional context but it has disapproved of the practice for federal statutory claims. This article argues that the presumption is improper. The history of the injunctive remedy in this country suggests that irreparable injury is an essential element of proof that should be applied in all cases. Indeed, although constitutional rights are of paramount importance in our legal system, the fact that …

A Custom Fit: Tailoring Texas Civil Jury Selection Procedures To Case Tiers, Jarod S. Gonzalez

Jarod S. Gonzalez

This Article, entitled A Custom Fit: Tailoring Texas Civil Jury Selection Procedures to Case Tiers, advocates for changes to current Texas state civil jury selection laws. The Article contends that Texas civil jury selection procedures would benefit from a tiered approach that provides different jury selection rules depending on the nature of the case, the complexity of the case, and the amount in controversy. Under current law, each party to a civil case receives six peremptory challenges in a state district court case. This is a large amount of peremptory challenges and has led to considerable Batson problems in Texas …

Getting Away With Murder (Most Of The Time): A Sesquicentennial Analysis Of Civil War Era Homicide Cases In Boone County, Missouri, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Frank O. Bowman III

In the quarter century centered on the Civil War, 1850-1875, fifty-three homicide cases came before the courts of Boone County, Missouri, of which Columbia, home of the University of Missouri, is the county seat. To remarkable degree, the story of these killings, told in this article, is a chronicle of the place and period.

The article’s method might be described as “murder as social history.” Its narrative thread is an effort to explain the remarkable fact that only twelve of the fifty-three defendants charged with murder were ever convicted of any form of criminal homicide. The explanation requires an introduction …