Law Commons^™

Lending A Hand Instead Of Breaking The Bank: The Imperative Need To Resolve The Circuit Split For Determining Undue Hardship For Section 523(A)(8) Student Loan Discharges, Rucha Pandit

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Bankruptcy Code permits petitioners to discharge their student debts if they are able to demonstrate that their loans impose an undue hardship. Somewhat frustratingly, the Code does not define what exactly constitutes undue hardship in the context of student loan discharges. Moreover, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has broken its silence to offer guidance on the issue. As a result, the rest of the federal judiciary has been once again, left to its own devices.

Over the past few decades, the Brunner and totality-of-the-circumstances tests have emerged as the standards that federal circuits choose between to assess whether …

Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple

William & Mary Law Review

Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …

"The" Rule: Modernizing The Potent, But Overlooked, Rule Of Witness Sequestration, Daniel J. Capra, Liesa L. Richter

William & Mary Law Review

Starting with its illustration in the Apocrypha and continuing into the modern day both in courtrooms and in ubiquitous criminal procedurals, one evidence rule has proven so powerful that it has become known as “THE” Rule of Evidence. The rule of witness sequestration demands that multiple witnesses to the same events be examined separately from one another to prevent them from, consciously or subconsciously, tailoring their testimony to ensure that it remains consistent. Witness sequestration is conceptually simplistic and famously mighty. Yet, this bedrock protection against inaccurate trial testimony is imperiled by conflicting interpretations of Federal Rule of Evidence 615, …

Manufacturing Sovereign State Mootness, Daniel Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

The idea that public defendants should receive any special treatment in the mootness context has been subject to intense criticism among commentators. Most notably, in the lead-up to the New York Rifle decision, Joseph Davis and Nicholas Reaves—two prominent First Amendment litigators from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—urged the Supreme Court to take the opportunity to correct the lower courts’ practice of blessing government abuse of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never adopted a presumption in favor of government defendants such as the one applied by the Seventh Circuit in Killeen, and it failed to …

Who And What Is A City "For"? Municipal Associational Standing Reexamined, Kaitlin Ainsworth Caruso

William & Mary Law Review Online

Cities nationwide increasingly engage in affirmative, plaintiff-side litigation to protect their residents. But despite this trend, standing remains a persistent challenge in municipal affirmative litigation—particularly in federal court, and particularly in impact litigation. I have previously proposed one way to give cities standing in federal court more in line with that of states, and with the role that cities play in their residents’ lives: extending to municipalities the doctrineof associational standing, which nonprofits and associations use to speak for their members in court. Recent works have both amplified and critiqued that initial proposal. With these additional considerations in hand, we …

The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman

William & Mary Law Review

The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …

Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang

William & Mary Law Review

Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …

The Federal Courts’ Rulemaking Buffer, Jordan M. Singer

William & Mary Law Review

Procedural rulemaking is often thought of as a second-order task for the federal court system, relevant to the courts’ work but not essential to their function. In reality, rulemaking plays an integral role in the court system’s operation by actively insulating the courts from environmental pressure. This Article explains how power over procedural rulemaking protects the federal courts from environmental uncertainty and describes the court system’s efforts to maintain the effectiveness of the rulemaking buffer in response to historical and contemporary challenges.

Our Prescriptive Judicial Power: Constitutive And Entrenchment Effects Of Historical Practice In Federal Courts Law, Ernest A. Young

William & Mary Law Review

Scholars examining the use of historical practice in constitutional adjudication have focused on a few high-profile separation of powers disputes, such as the recent decisions in NLRB v. Noel Canning and Zivotofsky v. Kerry. This Article argues that “big cases make bad theory”—that the focus on high-profile cases of this type distorts our understanding of how historical practice figures into constitutional adjudication more generally. I shift focus here to the more prosaic terrain of federal courts law, where practice plays a pervasive role. That shift reveals two important insights: First, while historical practice plays an important constitutive role structuring and …

Is The “Arising Under” Jurisdictional Grant In Article Iii Self-Executing?, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Premodern Constitutionalism, Martin H. Redish, Matthew Heins

William & Mary Law Review

The traditional concept of American constitutionalism has long been a basic assumption not subject to tremendous examination. For generations, scholars have understood our Constitution to be the byproduct of a revolutionary war fought for representation and a foundinggeneration concernedwith preventingtyranny in any form. The traditional understandingof American constitutionalism thus consists of two elements: the underlyingprinciple of skeptical optimism, which can be found in the historical context within which the Framers gathered to draft the Constitution, and the political apparatus effectuating that idea— countermajoritarian constraint set against majoritarian power— which reveals itself through reverse engineeringfrom the structural Constitution.

Over the last …

Habeas Corpus Petitions In Federal And Tribal Courts: A Search For Individualized Justice, Carrie E. Garrow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Implied Injunction Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

If Congress has neither authorized nor prohibited a suit to enforce the Constitution, may the federal courts create one nonetheless? At present, the answer mostly turns on the form of relief sought: if the plaintiff seeks damages, the Supreme Court will normally refuse relief unless Congress has specifically authorized it; in contrast, if the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the Court will refuse relief only if Congress has specifically barred it. These contradictory approaches naturally invite arguments for reform. Two common arguments—one based on the historical relationship between law and equity and the other based on separation of powers principles—could quite …

Allegedly "Biased", "Intimidating," And "Incompetent" State Court Judges And The Questionable Removal Of State Law Class Actions To Purportedly "Impartial" And "Competent" Federal Courts -- A Historical Analysis Of Class Action Dispositions In Federal And State Courts, 1925-2011, Willy E. Rice

William & Mary Business Law Review

Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law. To be sure, corporations and insurers have a long history of filing successful class actions against each other in state courts. Yet those corporate entities convinced Congress to embrace an uncommon view: continuing to allow allegedly “hostile” and “biased” state judges and juries to hear and decide everyday consumers’ “purely substantive state law class actions” is unfair and inefficient. Responding to the plea, Congress enacted the Class …

Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation Before Federal District Courts And The International Trade Commission, David L. Schwartz

William & Mary Law Review

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has recently become an important adjudicator of patent infringement disputes, and the administrative law judges (ALJs) on the ITC are widely viewed as experts on patent law. This Article empirically examines the performance of the ITC in patent claim construction cases. The Article also compares the performance of the ITC on claim construction with that of federal district courts of general jurisdiction. This study does not find any evidence that the patent-experienced ALJs of the ITC are more accurate at claim construction than district court judges or that the ALJs learn from the …

Judges As Altruistic Hierarchs, Lynn A. Stout

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Power, Policy, And The Hyde Amendment: Ensuring Sound Judicial Interpretation Of The Criminal Attorney's Fees Law, Lawrence Judson Welle

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Charge And A Comparative Vision To Substantially Expand And Subject Matter Specialize The Federal Judiciary: A Preliminary Blueprint For Remodeling Our National Houses Of Justice And Establishing A Separate System Of Federal Criminal Courts, Victor Williams

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Impact Of Substantive Interests On The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael Wells

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Habeas Corpus - The Responsibilities Of Federal Courts In Post-Conviction Proceedings

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.