Law Commons^™

Stalking Secret Law: What Predicts Publication In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Deborah J. Merritt, James J. Brudney

Vanderbilt Law Review

For more than a quarter century, the United States Courts of Appeals have maintained two bodies of law. One is published, widely disseminated, and fully precedential. The other, now encompassing nearly 80% of all dispositions on the merits,' is unpublished, erratically distributed, and rarely precedential. What distinguishes these two sets of cases? Is it possible to predict why judges publish opinions in some cases while resolving others through unpublished opinions, memoranda, or judgment orders?

Each court has formal rules governing the publication of opinions, but those standards fail to account for variations in publication. Despite substantial overlap among circuit rules, …

Drug Treatment Courts And Emergent Experimentalist Government, Michael C. Dorf, Charles F. Sabel

Vanderbilt Law Review

Despite the continuing "war on drugs," the last decade has witnessed the creation and nationwide spread of a remarkable set of institutions, drug treatment courts. In drug treatment court, a criminal defendant pleads guilty or otherwise accepts responsibility for a charged offense and accepts placement in a court-mandated program of drug treatment. The judge and court personnel closely monitor the defendant's performance in the program and the program's capacity to serve the mandated client. The federal government and national associations in turn monitor the local drug treatment courts and disseminate successful practices. The ensemble of institutions, monitoring, and pooling exemplifies …

The Demise Of Hypothetical Jurisdiction In The Federal Courts, Scott C. Idleman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Recent years have witnessed a modest but expanding Supreme Court effort to return the national government to its structural first principles.' Foremost among these is that federal power, although vast, is neither inherent nor unbounded, but consists only of that granted by the Constitution. In 1998, the Court remained steadfast to this precept, thwarting yet another attempt by a federal branch to exceed its limited and enumerated constitutional powers. This time, however, the perpetrator was none other than the Article IH judiciary itself. In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, the Court formally denounced the federal court practice …

Separate But Not Sovereign: Reconciling Federal Commandeering Of State Courts, Tonya M. Gray

Vanderbilt Law Review

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people." Determining the division of power between the states and the federal government has been a debated issue throughout constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, "[n]o problem has plagued the nation's constitutional history more." In joining the union, the states relinquished power to the federal government. The states were not left without power, as the Tenth Amendment guarantees that powers not enumerated to the federal government or restricted from the states are retained by the states. The broad language of the …

"Issue Voting" By Multimember Appellate Courts: A Response To Some Radical Proposals, John M. Rogers

Vanderbilt Law Review

A judge on a multimember appellate court can vote against the result of his or her own reasoning by deferring to a majority on a subissue on which the judge differs. When Justice White did just this in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas,' soon followed by a similarly anomalous vote by Justice Kennedy in Arizona v. Fulminante, I examined the pool of United States Supreme Court cases in which this kind of voting was possible. Out of more than one hundred fifty earlier cases where one or more of the justices might have voted in such a way, only two justices …

How Outcome Voting Promotes Principled Issue Identification: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, Maxwell L. Stearns

Vanderbilt Law Review

In his provocative article, "Issue Voting" by Multimember Appellate Courts: A Response to Some Radical Proposals,' Professor John M. Rogers has provided a valuable opportunity for those of us interested in the structural aspects of appellate court decisionmaking--especially Supreme Court decisionmaking--to step back, to compare notes, and to evaluate an increasingly prominent proposal for institutional reform. More importantly, this Colloquium provides an opportunity to explore more deeply several anomalies associated with appellate court decisionmaking. At the outset, I should emphasize that while he devotes a considerable portion of his article to evaluating my scholarship on appellate court decisionmaking, as Professor …

Appellate Court Voting Rules, Scott B. Smith

Vanderbilt Law Review

During the 1996 term, the United States Supreme Court made a candid confession about its voting practices. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Court overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. and recognized that when a justice defers to the majority against his or her own reasoning inconclusive precedent results. Union Gas was particularly unusual because Justice White switched his vote to assure a result in a three-remedy case where none of the three remedies had the support of a majority. In Seminole Tribe, the Court admitted Union Gas "has, since its issuance, been of questionable precedential value, largely …

Issues And Outcomes, Guidance, And Indeterminacy: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, David G. Post, Steven C. Salop

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is now a small but growing literature on the proper voting procedure for multijudge panels. Professor John Rogers began the most recent round of thinking about these vexing issues, arguing that a judge on a multimember panel should never "vote against the result of his or her own reasoning by deferring to a majority on a sub-issue on which the judge differs." We responded, arguing in favor of just such action, which we labeled "issue voting." We criticized Professor Rogers's preferred mode of multimember court adjudication, which we labeled "outcome voting," on the grounds that it provided limited guidance …

The Ills Of The Federal Sentencing Guidelines And The Search For A Cure: Using Sentence Entrapment To Combat Governmental Manipulation Of Sentencing, Robert S. Johnson

Vanderbilt Law Review

Consider the following scenario:' The police conduct an under- cover sting operation targeting drug traffickers. An undercover officer approaches a suspected drug dealer and arranges to purchase crack cocaine. Over a period of five weeks, the suspect makes seven sales to the officer, and the police arrest him after the final sale. The total amount sold by the defendant was 50.4 grams, just enough to place him within the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Had he sold up to 49.9 grams, his mandatory minimum sentence would only have been five years. The district court hearing this case found it …

Five Views Of Federalism: "Converse-1983" In Context, Akhil R. Amar

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1987, I published an overly long article in the Yale Law Journal entitled Of Sovereignty and Federalism. In it, I advanced a "converse-1983" model of federalism-a model that highlighted the ways in which state laws can provide remedies when federal officials violate federal constitutional rights. For example, prior to the 1971 landmark of Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizens whose Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by federal officers had no clear federal cause of action; but state trespass law often provided a remedy, and enabled citizens to recover when their "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects" had been …

Rereading "The Federal Courts": Revising The Domain Of Federal Courts Jurisprudence At The End Of The Twentieth Century, Judith Resnik

Vanderbilt Law Review

A first enterprise in understanding and reframing Federal Courts jurisprudence is to locate, descriptively, "the Federal Courts." This activity-identifying the topic-may seem too obvious for comment, but I hope to show its utility. One must start with a bit of history, going back to the "beginning" of this body of jurisprudence. The relevant date is 1928, when Felix Frankfurter and James Landis, who began this conversation, published their book, The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System. Three years later, in 1931, Felix Frankfurter, then joined by Wilber G. Katz (and later by Harry Shulman), …

Truth, Justice, And The American Way: The Case Against The Client Perjury Rules, Jay S. Silver

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1637, England's dreaded Court of Star Chamber pronounced the sentence: John Bastwick, a Puritan activist,' was to be pilloried twice with one ear cut off each time, imprisoned in perpetuity without "books, pen, ink, or paper," stripped of his university degrees, and fined 5,000. Shortly before, he had been escorted up a twisting staircase in Westminster Palace and into a dark, cavernous room with stars painted on the ceiling to be tried on charges of criminal libel for having penned a political tract critical of the government. According to Star Chamber procedure, since Bastwick's counsel refused to vouch for …

Sentence Credit For Pre-Trial Defendants Released To Residential Detention Facilities, Maryellen Sullivan

Vanderbilt Law Review

Most individuals consider continued confinement to a residential detention facility and denial of access to phone, mail, and family visits to constitute involuntary detention. The majority of the federal courts of appeal do not agree, however, and will not grant sentence credit to a federal offender for time spent, as a condition of bond, in a "treatment center" or "halfway house."' These same courts, without exception, grant sentence credit to individuals who are remanded to these residen- tial facilities after conviction. This inequity violates the purpose of the Bail Reform Act of 1966 (the "Act"), which ensures even-handed and uniform …

Hypnotic Memories And Civil Sexual Abuse Trials, Jacqueline Kanovitz

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the next few paragraphs, the reader will eavesdrop on a psycho- therapy session. During this session, the therapist uses hypnosis, a common technique in clinical practice today. In the past, the legal system has paid little attention to the memory retrieval techniques used in psychotherapy because statutes of limitations have prevented patients from using memories of childhood wrongs uncovered in adult psycho-therapies to bring suit. However, recent changes will force the legal system to examine whether the memory restoring techniques used in psychotherapy can produce memory that is trustworthy enough for the legal system to accept. What follows is …

Prospective Overruling And The Judicial Role After "James B. Beam Co. V. Georgia", K. David Steele

Vanderbilt Law Review

Was there ever such a profession as ours anyhow? We speak of ourselves as practicing law, as teaching it, as deciding it, and not one of us can say what law means."' Justice Cardozo's observation about the elusive nature of the American legal system lies at the heart of the controversy over retroactivity. Questions about whether judges may prospectively overrule the law raise fundamental issues concerning the nature of law and the proper role for the judiciary.

In 1991, the Supreme Court issued its latest opinion on prospective overruling and judicial rulemaking. In James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, …

A Reevaluation Of The Canons Of Statutory Interpretation, Joseph H. Bates

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Symposium has its genesis in the Vanderbilt Law Review's inaugural symposium, A Symposium on Statutory Construction, published in 1950.' Although the 1950 Symposium included a Foreword by Justice Felix Frankfurter and contributions by several preeminent scholars in the field, Karl Llewellyn's clumsily titled but succinctly written Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes are to be Construed has eclipsed the Symposium which brought it to light and has persevered as a highly influential, if not definitive, critique of the canons of statutory construction.

Llewelyn's article, in general, attacks legal formalism and …

The Presumption Of Reviewability: A Study In Canonical Construction And Its Consequences, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Vanderbilt Law Review

The much-maligned canons of statutory construction stubbornly have survived, largely on the strength of the assertion that whatever the aim of the statute's interpretation, an interpretive canon will improve the chances that the statute's aim will be realized. Canonical construction serves two different functions. Some of the canons ostensibly are designed as short-cuts to the discovery of the legislature's "true" intent. Professor Geoffrey Miller has explained how the canons may reflect the judicial articulations of conversational conventions that help courts understand otherwise vexing statutory language.' Canons may also serve as surrogates for other, better evidence of legislators' intent. In this …

The Canons Of Statutory Construction And Judicial Constraints: A Response To Macey And Miller, Lawrence C. Marshall

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professors Jonathan Macey and Geoffrey Miller claim to have set out to provide a positivist explanation for why judges ever invoke canons in the course of interpreting statutes.' In truth, though, their question is a far broader one. What they really seek to explain is why judges ever use any interpretive tools in the course of interpreting statutes. Why, Macey and Miller want to know, don't judges simply decide what result in the case will best promote a good outcome on the grounds of public policy, intrinsic fairness, economic efficiency or wealth maximization? This question is perplexing to Macey and …

Where Have You Gone, Karl Llewellyn? Should Congress Turn Its Lonely Eyes To You?, Stephen F. Ross

Vanderbilt Law Review

Over forty years ago, in the Symposium we commemorate today, Professor Karl Llewellyn wrote a devastating critique of the canons of statutory construction. For virtually every canon of construction, he demonstrated that there was another canon that could be employed to reach the opposite result. His point was not to be critical, but to argue proscriptively that the process of statutory construction requires an interpretation in light of a judicial determination of "some assumed purpose."'

Other commentators, both before and after the publication of Llewellyn's magnificent contribution to the Vanderbilt Law Review, have taken a different approach. These observers have …

The Practice And Problems Of Plain Meaning: A Response To Aleinikoff And Shaw, Frederick Schauer

Vanderbilt Law Review

The attention so many of the participants in this Symposium have paid to my thoughts about the role of plain meaning in statutory interpretation' is both gratifying and surprising. Among those scholars finding my ideas worthy of note are Professors Aleinikoff and Shaw, and my aim is both to comment on their contribution here and to respond more generally to what others have said about my views on the role of plain meaning. By continuing the discussion I hope to clarify some of the claims I have made about plain meaning, and in doing so to foster a better appreciation …

Modern Statutes, Loose Canons, And The Limits Of Practical Reason: A Response To Farber And Ross, Edward L. Rubin

Vanderbilt Law Review

Daniel Farber' and Stephen Ross, in separate contributions to this Symposium, raise the most crucial question in modern statutory interpretation, a question that exposes the profound triviality of the canons of statutory construction that Karl Llewellyn so effectively attacked. Ross points out that the legislature can control, or at least attempt to control, the judicial use of the canons by the way it drafts the statute and by effective use of supplementary materials such as mark-ups, committee reports, and floor debates. Farber, in his critique of formalism, demonstrates that formalist interpretation is an impediment to effective statutory drafting. Inherent in …

Coalition Formation And The Presumption Of Reviewability: A Response To Rodriguez, Robert K. Rasmussen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Professor Dan Rodriguez's paper The Presumption of Reviewability: A Study in Canonical Construction and Its Consequences' makes several important contributions to the literature on statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state. It provides a coherent explanation for the curious review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and analyzes the continuing battle over judicial review of agency action as part of a continuing dialogue among Congress, the courts, and the President. Rodriguez recognizes that those who study statutory interpretation must take account of both the existence of administrative agencies and the fact that interpretive practices have the potential to affect …

Judicial "Pruning" Of "Garden Variety Fraud" Civil Rico Cases Does Not Work: It's Time For Congress To Act, Susan Getzendanner

Vanderbilt Law Review

After many years of effort, Congress actually may amend substantively the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act'-"RICO"-this year.' So I am delighted to accept the timely invitation of the Vanderbilt Law Review to add my view of how the law should be revised.My RICO perspective comes from my years as a federal district court judge in Chicago from 1980 to 1987, when I witnessed the real birth and growth of civil RICO.'

I am told by my co-panelist, Professor G. Robert Blakey, that for a time I had written more RICO opinions than any other judge …

Lawyers As Officers Of The Court, Eugene R. Gaetke

Vanderbilt Law Review

In its public assertions, the legal profession promotes a different model: lawyers are officers of the court in the conduct of their professional, and even their personal," affairs. The organized bar has expressly emphasized this obligation in each of its major codifications of the ethical obligations of the profession, including the American Bar Association's most recent effort, the 1983 Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

Lawyers like to refer to themselves as officers of the court. Careful analysis of the role of the lawyer within the adversarial legal system reveals the characterization to be vacuous and unduly self-laudatory. It confuses lawyers …

Interjurisdictional Certification And Choice Of Law, John B. Corr, Ira P. Robbins

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is a story, probably apocryphal, that, at a 1970s conference discussing the great potential and even greater problems of some economically developing countries, a rather cynical American economist is supposed to have remarked that "Brazil is the country of the future-and always will be." Some commentators believe that much the same could be said about the certification process, but with greater accuracy. Certification has beguiled and to some extent disappointed two generations of legal scholars.' Intended to resolve problems that arise when a court of one jurisdiction must apply the law of another jurisdiction, certification is the process by …

Considering New Issues On Appeal: The General Rule And The Gorilla Rule, Robert J. Martineau

Vanderbilt Law Review

One aspect of the appellate process that most bedevils judges and lawyers occurs when a party attempts to raise an issue in the appellate court that it did not present to the trial court. This question creates problems for the following reasons: (1) the general rule against considering new issues on appeal; (2) the perception that it is unfair to the appellant if the new issue is not considered, yet it is unfair to the appellee if the new issue is considered; and (3) the failure or inability of appellate courts to articulate any principled basis for determining when and …

Criminal Prosecution Of Bank Personnel Under The Misapplication Statute: The Proper Mens Rea Standard For Establishing Intent, William J. Holley, Ii

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development advocates legislative adoption of a new Misapplication Statute as a long range solution to the courts'continued debate over the appropriate mens rea standard and judicial adoption of a uniform approach as a short run alternative. Part II of this Recent Development traces the various mens rea standards that courts have applied under the Misapplication Statute. Part III discusses the current confusion over the appropriate section 656 mens rea standard by looking at three recent circuit court decisions.' Part IV advocates the adoption of a new Misapplication Statute similar to the approach that the National Com-mission on Reform …

Book Review: Federal Rulemaking, Jeffrey A. Parness

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the 1979 Annual Report on the State of the Judiciary'Chief Justice Burger called for a fresh look at the entire federal rule making process. Following the Chief Justice's lead, the Federal Judicial Center' responded with a report by Winifred R. Brown entitled Federal Rulemaking: Problems and Possibilities. In a foreward to that report Professor A. Leo Levin, the Federal Judicial Center's director, discouraged any attempt to intiate "a thorough review of the strengths and weaknesses of the process," and advised the author instead to focus "on those aspects of the process that had been singled out for criticism and …

Inconsistency In The United States Courts Of Appeals: Dimensions And Mechanisms For Resolution, Stephen L. Wasby

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article is based on an extensive study of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits that focused on two interrelated questions. The first question was how judges in geographically large circuits communicate with each other when they are not all stationed in the same city.' The focus of this Article is on the second question-the problem of intracircuit inconsistency. The study is based on largely open-ended interviews with the Ninth Circuit's active-duty and senior circuit judges and with some active-duty and senior district judges who had sat most frequently with the court of appeals …

Book Review -- Federal Courts In The Early Republic, Randall Bridwell

Vanderbilt Law Review

FEDERAL COURTS IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC: KENTUCKY 1789-1816.

By Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978. Pp. ix, 234. $16.50.

Reviewed by Randall Bridwell