Law Commons^™

Holmes And The Common Law: A Jury's Duty, Matthew P. Cline

Matthew P Cline

The notion of a small group of peers whose responsibility it is to play a part in determining the outcome of a trial is central to the common conception of the American legal system. Memorialized in the Constitution of the United States as a fundamental right, and in the national consciousness as the proud, if begrudged, duty of all citizens, juries are often discussed, but perhaps not always understood. Whatever misunderstandings have come to be, certainly many of them sprang from the juxtaposition of jury and judge. Why do we have both? How are their responsibilities divided? Who truly decides …

Transparency, Independence And Diversity: Does The United States Have It Better?-A Comparative Analysis Of The Process Of Appointment Of Judges To The Supreme Court In The United States And India., Varun Vaish

Varun Vaish

The rise of legal realism has made it manifestly clear that the background and worldview of judges influence cases.This is evidenced in the United States where the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary is believed to be, at least in some measure, predicated upon the proximity of the political ideology of the judge with that of the appointing party. This influence is acknowledged, questioned and somewhat mitigated against by the process of appointment wherein the Senate ratifies the president’s choice. However the lack of acknowledgement of this influence and its consequent securitization, in the appointment of judges is where …

Cause Judging, Justin Hansford

Justin Hansford

Building on the framework of “cause lawyering” scholarship, this Article explores the fact that, in a similar tradition as a “cause lawyering” law practice animated by dedication to a cause, “cause judging” exists as well. This insight has implications for judicial ethics norms. The hyper-partisan nature of modern American life has already cast doubt on the possibility that politically appointed judges can ever truly attain the “appearance of impartiality” demanded by judicial recusal standards. Instead, judicial ethics norms should embrace the fact that judges have moral and political ideals that inform their rulings when they exercise judicial discretion, and that …

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

Ideological Voting Applied To The School Desegregation Cases In The Federal Courts Of Appeals From The 1960’S And 70’S, Joe Custer

Joe Custer

This paper considers a research suggestion from Cass Sunstein to analyze segregation cases from the 1960's and 1970's and whether three hypothesis he projected in the article "Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation," 90 Va. L. Rev. 301 (2004), involving various models of judicial ideology, would pertain. My paper considers Sunstein’s three hypotheses in addition to other judicial ideologies to try to empirically determine what was influencing Federal Court of Appeals Judges in regard to Civil Rights issues, specifically school desegregation, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Punishment And Rights, Benjamin L. Apt

Benjamin L. Apt

Prevalent theories of criminal punishment lack a rationale for the precise duration and nature of state-ordered criminal punishment. In practice, too, criminal penalization suffers from inadequate evidence of punitive efficacy. These deficiencies, in theory and in fact, would not be so grave were the state to enjoy unfettered power over the disposition of criminal penalties. However, in societies that recognize legal rights, criminal punishments must be consistent with rights. Efficacy, even where demonstrable, does not suffice as a legal justification for punishment. This article analyzes the source of rights and how they function as primary rules in a legal system. …

Presumed Imminence: Judicial Risk Assessment In The Post-9/11 World, Avidan Cover

Avidan Cover

Court opinions in the terrorism context are often distinguished by fact finding that relates to risk assessment. These risk assessments‑inherently policy decisions‑are influenced by cultural cognition and by cognitive errors common to probability determinations, particularly those made regarding highly dangerous and emotional events. In a post-9/11 world, in which prevention and intelligence are prioritized over prosecution, courts are more likely to overstate the potential harm, neglect the probability, and presume the imminence of terrorist attacks. As a result courts apt to defer to the government and require less evidence in support of measures that curtail civil liberties. This Article takes …

Investment Dispute Resolution Under The Transpacific Partnership Agreement: Prelude To A Slippery Slope?, Leon E. Trakman Professor

Leon E Trakman Dean

Intense debate is currently brewing over the multistate negotiation of the Transpacific Partnership Agreement [TPPA], led by the United States. The TPPA will be the largest trade and investment agreement after the European Union, with trillions of investment dollars at stake. However, there is little understanding of the complex issues involved in regulating inbound and outbound investment. The negotiating of the TPPA is shrouded in both mystery and dissension among negotiating countries. NGOs, investor and legal interest groups heatedly debate how the TPPA ought to regulate international investment. However this dissension is resolved, it will have enormous economic, political and …

Captured Legislatures And Public-Interested Courts, Patrick Luff

Patrick A. Luff

According to public choice, the predominant paradigm of modern regulatory theory, legislative activity provides benefits to small, organized interests at the expense of larger groups. In practice, this means that interest groups are often able to benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. This model has been extended to the courts, which are described as implicit or explicit actors in the wealth-transfer process. Applying public-choice theory to the courts, however, overlooks the structural differences between the federal judiciary and Congress, as well as the insights of judicial decisionmaking theory. Not only do judges receive better and more complete …

“Nixon’S Sabotage”: How Politics Pushed The “Discriminatory Purpose” Requirement Into Equal Protection Law, Danieli Evans

Danieli Evans

This article describes the way that politics—resistance from the elected branches coupled with President Nixon appointing Chief Justice Burger—shaped the Court’s unanimous decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), a school desegregation case that played a crucial role in limiting the forms of state action considered unconstitutional discrimination. Chief Justice Burger defied longstanding Supreme Court procedure to assign himself the majority opinion even though he disagreed with the majority outcome. Justice Douglas alleged that he did this “in order to write Nixon’s view of freedom of choice into the law.” Justice Burger’s opinion laid the foundation for limiting …

Controversial Five-To-Four Supreme Court Decisions And The Majority Of One, Steven I. Friedland

Steven I. Friedland

Five-to-Four Supreme Court decisions in controversial cases have sparked public backlash in recent years, which has served to reframe the decisions as partisan politics. While judicial decision-making is designed to follow the doctrine of stare decisis, the view that Supreme Court justices have become hemmed in by their ideologies – with perhaps the notable exception of the swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy -- has been popularized in the media and blogs. While the Court’s decisions might be intersubjective, meaning bounded by moveable and socially constructed understandings, the real danger is for the justices to feed the perception that the …

Timeless Trial Strategies And Tactics: Lessons From The Classic Claus Von Bülow Case, Daniel M. Braun

Daniel M Braun

In this new Millennium -- an era of increasingly complex cases -- it is critical that lawyers keep a keen eye on trial strategy and tactics. Although scientific evidence today is more sophisticated than ever, the art of effectively engaging people and personalities remains prime. Scientific data must be contextualized and presented in absorbable ways, and attorneys need to ensure not only that they correctly understand jurors, judges, witnesses, and accused persons, but also that they find the means to make their arguments truly resonate if they are to formulate an effective case and ultimately realize justice. A decades-old case …

Ideology, Qualifications, And Covert Senate Obstruction Of Federal Court Nominations, Ryan Owens, Daniel Walters, Ryan Black, Anthony Madonna

Ryan Owens

Scholars, policymakers, and journalists have bemoaned the emphasis on ideology over qualifications and party over performance in the judicial appointment process. Though, for years, the acrimony between the two parties and between the Senate and President remained limited to appointments to the United States Supreme Court, the modern era of judicial appointments has seen the so-called “appointments rigor mortis” spread throughout all levels of judicial appointments. A host of studies have examined the causes and consequences of the growing acrimony and obstruction of lower federal court appointments, but few rely on archival data and empirical evidence to examine the underlying …

Arbitration, Women Arbitrators And Sharia, Mohamed Raffa Dr.

Mohamed Raffa Dr.

So, can the Arbitrator be a woman? Omar, the third Khalipha in Islam after Prophet Muhammad, actually appointed a female judge. Today, across the various Muslim countries, there are female judges in almost every Muslim country except in Saudi Arabia. There are about 70 female Iraqi judges, 10 female judges in the UAE, 20 in Egypt female judges and Arbitrators, Nigeria recently appointed the first female Chief Justice in Africa as well as it has one of the largest National Associations of Women Judges; with more in other Muslim Countries including Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun

Daniel M Braun

The rise of modern mass tort litigation in the U.S. has transformed punitive damages into something of a “hot button” issue. Since the size of punitive damage awards grew so dramatically in the past half century, this private law remedy has begun to involve issues of constitutional rights that traditionally pertained to criminal proceedings. This has created a risky interplay between tort and criminal law, and courts have thus been trying to find ways to properly manage punitive damage awards. The once rapidly expanding universe of punitive damages is therefore beginning to contract. There remain, however, very serious difficulties. Despite …

E-Jurors:A View From The Bench, Judge Antoinette Plogstedt

Judge Antoinette Plogstedt

E-JURORS: A View From the Bench

Electronic jurors pose new twists to an old problem. With emerging technology in mobile devices, social media, and internet research, juror misconduct exists in new shapes and forms. Many jurisdictions have made attempts to curb electronic misconduct by modifying standard jury instruction and confiscating juror cell phones. Some judges have implemented jury instructions which remind jurors to refrain from communicating about the case and conducting on-line research. However, their efforts fall short. In previous literature, practicioners, students and a few scholars have offered suggestions on modifying jury instructions to better inform jurors of prohibited …

Why Justice Kennedy's Opinion In Windsor Short-Changed Same-Sex Couples, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in United States v. Windsor—invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act—made the same mistake as his decision in Lawrence v. Texas: it relied upon abstract notions of ‘liberty’ rather than the text-based guarantee of equality. Same-sex couples deserve more. They are entitled to equal treatment under the United States Constitution. Bans on same-sex marriage cannot be supported by a rational state interest, and instead constitute impermissible discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. By issuing a doctrinally muddled decision that included discussions of federalism, liberty, due process, and equal protection, Justice Kennedy missed an …

Activism, Attitudes, And The Citation Of Precedent In Supreme Court Opinions, Robert R. Robinson

Robert R Robinson

Adherence to precedent provides a legitimizing function for judges. Recent scholarship supports this contention, demonstrating that Supreme Court justices are more likely to cite well-grounded precedent when their opinions face greater scrutiny. In this paper, I continue this line of research by examining whether citation practice varies along individual-level characteristics such as judicial ideology, a propensity for activism, judicial background, and judicial roles. I find that most individual-level factors have little or no impact on how justices ground their opinions in prior precedent, with the exception of judicial activism, which has a moderate negative impact on the centrality of the …

Courtroom Drama With Chinese Characteristics: A Comparative Approach To Legal Process In Chinese Cinema, Stephen J. Mcintyre

Stephen J McIntyre

While previous “law and film” scholarship has concentrated mainly on Hollywood films, this Essay examines legal themes in Chinese cinema. It argues that Chinese films do not simply mimic Western conventions when portraying the courtroom, but draw upon a centuries-old, indigenous tradition of “court case” (gong’an) melodrama. Like Hollywood cinema, gong’an drama seizes upon the dramatic and narrative potential of legal trials. Yet whereas Hollywood trial films turn viewers into jurors, pushing them back and forth between the competing stories that emerge from the adversarial process, gong’an drama eschews any recognition of opposing narratives, centering instead on the punishment of …

The Behavioral Psychology Of Appellate Persuasion, James Ridgway

James D. Ridgway

This article uses behavioral psychology research to work backward from how appellate decisions are made to how oral argument, briefing, and argument design can have the maximum impact on the decision makers. Appellate judges are human beings who have the same basic cognitive processes as any others. Understanding these decision-making processes is the key to understanding how to best utilize the few minutes of argument and few pages of briefing that you have to affect what the decision in a case will say. In addition to illuminating the most effective ways to communicate, it also provides insight into how best …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

A Revised View Of The Judicial Hunch, Linda L. Berger

Linda L. Berger

Judicial intuition is misunderstood. Labeled as cognitive bias, it is held responsible for stereotypes of character and credibility. Framed as mental shortcut, it is blamed for overconfident and mistaken predictions. Depicted as flashes of insight, it takes credit for unearned wisdom. The true value of judicial intuition falls somewhere in between. When judges are making judgments about people (he looks trustworthy) or the future (she will be the better parent), the critics are correct: intuition based on past experience may close minds. Once a judge recognizes a familiar pattern in a few details, she may fail to see the whole …

Judicial Independence In Post-Conflict Iraq: Establishing The Rule Of Law In An Islamic Constitutional Democracy, David Pimentel, Brian Anderson

David Pimentel

Contemporary Iraq is facing the full range of challenges that come with post-conflict transitional justice, including “paving the road toward peace and reconciliation” and establishing a functional state, characterized by the Rule of Law. Prospects for the establishment of an independent judiciary in Iraq are obstructed by a number of factors, including (1) how to apply the explicit recognition of the law of Islam in the Iraqi Constitution, (2) the inability to pass legislation on the Federal Courts of Iraq, leaving several provisions of the Iraqi Constitution unimplemented, and other critical elements of judicial independence unaddressed, including provisions for tenure, …

Culture And The Rule Of Law: Cautions For Constitution-Making, David Pimentel

David Pimentel

Constitution-making in developing and post-conflict countries is a growth industry throughout the world. A country needing a new constitution will necessarily feel pressure to adopt, to "import," constitutional texts and principles from other, perhaps more developed nations, knowing that (1) such concepts have been tried and proven in other successful nations, and (2) they meet internationally-recognized minimum standards. A constitution, however, is, and must be, both a product of and a reaction to the society’s culture, and that includes its legal tradition, its history, and its ideology. Unless constitutions are drafted in cultural context, the best intentions are likely to …

The Limits Of Debate Or What We Talk About When We Talk About Gender Imbalance On The Bench, Keith Bybee

Keith J. Bybee

What do we talk about when we talk about gender imbalance on the bench? The first thing we do is keep track of the number of female judges. Once the data has been gathered, we then argue about what the disparity between men and women in the judiciary means. These arguments about meaning are not freestanding. On the contrary, I claim that debates over gender imbalance occur within the context of a broader public debate over the nature of judicial decisionmaking. I argue that this public debate revolves around dueling conceptions of the judge as impartial arbiter and as politically …

Problems Of Perception In The European Court Of Human Rights: A Matter Of Evidence?, Anne Richardson Oakes

Anne Richardson Oakes

The “doctrine of appearances” is now an important element of the jurisprudence of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court derives support for its interpretations from the traditional precept of the common law that “justice must be seen to be done.” However, the formulations of the European Court are idiosyncratic and apparently driven by an asserted perception of an increased public sensitivity in this area. This paper examines these formulations and considers the extent to which judicial principles of procedural fairness require an empirical connection.

Judicial Review And Deliberative Politics. A Tension In Need Of Analysis., Donald E. Bello Hutt

Donald E. Bello Hutt

Champions of judicial review of legislation have defended this institution even before John Marshall decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Nevertheless, those defenses have to face with several difficulties, both practical and abstract. The aim of this paper is to analyze those difficulties and the context in which the defenses have been successful. We shall discuss the origins of judicial review in the work of James Iredell, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall in order to introduce not only the first defenses of judicial review, but to fix the political context and dominant constitutional philosophy at their time: departmentalism and popular …

Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed? Lessons From Judicial Activism In First Amendment And Sherman Act Jurisprudence, Warren S. Grimes

Warren S Grimes

The Supreme Court has become an unelected superlegislature that, instead of narrowly deciding cases or controversies, tends to issue sweeping policy decisions that deprive democratic institutions at federal, state and local levels of their appropriate democratic role. Part I of this paper describes content-neutral measures of judicial activism, most repeatedly acknowledged by the Court. Part II addresses specific examples of judicial activism in Supreme Court decisions involving the Sherman Act and First Amendment election law cases. Part III concludes by urging a public debate on possible reforms of the Court, some easily implemented, others more involved, that could constrain judicial …

Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed? Lessons From Judicial Activism In First Amendment And Sherman Act Cases, Warren S. Grimes

Warren S Grimes

The Court has strayed from its role as a decider of cases or controversies to become an unelected policy board that undermines democratic institutions at the federal, state, and local levels. Part I of this paper describes content-neutral measures of judicial activism, most repeatedly acknowledged by the Court. Part II addresses specific examples of judicial activism in Supreme Court decisions involving the Sherman Act and First Amendment election law cases. Part III concludes by urging a public debate on possible reforms of the Court, some easily implemented, others more involved, that could constrain judicial activism and restore the Court’s primary …