Law Commons^™

Symposium: The Least Understood Branch: The Demands And Challenges Of The State Judiciary: Introduction, Alex Carver, Susanna Rychlak

Vanderbilt Law Review

On March 31, 2017, the Vanderbilt Law Review, in conjunction with the American Constitution Society, hosted a Symposium at Vanderbilt Law School entitled The Least Understood Branch: The Demands and Challenges of the State Judiciary. This Symposium began five months earlier at Emory University School of Law, where the Symposium's contributors gathered to discuss the importance and difficulties of studying state courts. This theme is reflected in the articles published in this Symposium issue. The importance of state courts to the American system of justice can hardly be overstated. As Professors Tracey George and Albert Yoon recognize, "The work of …

Measuring Justice In State Courts: The Demographics Of The State Judiciary, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Vanderbilt Law Review

For most individuals and organizations, state courts--especially state trial courts-are the "law" for all effective purposes. State courts are America's courts. But, we know surprisingly little about state court judges despite their central and powerful role in lawmaking and dispute resolution. This lack of information is especially significant because judges' backgrounds have important implications for the work of courts. The characteristics of those who sit in judgment affect the internal workings of courts as well as the external perception of those courts and judges. The background of judges will influence how they make decisions and can impact the public's acceptance …

Introduction: The Power Of New Data And Technology, Laura E. Dolbow

Vanderbilt Law Review

Modern technology has revolutionized the law. Computers drastically expanded the scope and speed of access to legal information. Unlike the days when lawyers had to climb ladders in the stacks to find specific statutes or cases in printed reporters, Westlaw brings up thousands of resources at the touch of a fingertip. Beyond transforming legal research, new data and technology have transformed the law in two other powerful ways: they have made the law more accessible to nonlawyers, and they have made it possible for lawyers to gather information about how the law is being executed. The articles in this Section …

Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost

Vanderbilt Law Review

The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution's text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …

State Courts And The Interpretation Of Federal Statutes, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

In the debate over how federal courts should interpret federal statutes, "faithful agent" theories stand pitted against "dynamic" theories of statutory interpretation. The following questions lie at the heart of the debate: Is the proper role of federal courts to strive to implement the commands of the legislature-in other words, to act as Congress's faithful agents? Or, is the proper role of federal courts to act as partners with Congress in the forward-looking making of federal law-in other words, to interpret statutes dynamically? Proponents of faithful agent theories include both "textualists" and "purposivists." Textualists have argued that federal courts best …

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 …

Federalism, Untamed, Ann Althouse

Vanderbilt Law Review

Do you rankle at those amorphous rhapsodies about "Our Federalism" indulged in by judges who relegate civil rights litigants to state courts?' Why would anyone see cases in which state officials stand charged of violating the rights of individuals as presenting an occasion for deference to the states? If federal rights take precedence over state policies and practices, is it not perverse to prefer adjudication in the courts that have the strongest bias in favor of state interests? If jurisdiction is a duty and declining jurisdiction consequently a dubious business, shouldn't we reject judge-made doctrine and statutory interpretation that restrict …

The Consensual Electronic Surveillance Experiment: State Courts React To "United States V. White", Melanie L. Black Dubis

Vanderbilt Law Review

It has long been recognized that a state, if its citizens so chose, may "serve as a laboratory" for economic and social legislation. In an era of new federalism, state courts have experimented by extending individual rights under state constitutions that the United States Supreme Court, beginning with the Burger Court, refused to recognize under the federal constitution. Although this approach has been criticized by the judiciary and academia, it continues to be a driving force in the development of individual rights.

In United States v. White, the Supreme Court held that the police practice of obtaining evidence with warrantless …

State Courts Reject "Leon" On State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense Of Reactive Rulings, Leigh A. Morrissey

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 1984, the United States Supreme Court announced a broad exception to the federal exclusionary rule' in United States v. Leon. The Court held the exclusionary rule inapplicable when police officers obtain evidence in reasonable, good faith reliance on a warrant later found to be defective. Commentators had advised against the creation of the so-called good faith exception before Leon. After Leon, they promulgated a torrent of commentary criticizing both the Leon Court's reasoning and its result. Today, because Leon does not control state constitutional decisions, the battle over the good faith exception is fought on the state level. Currently, …

Miranda And The State Constitution: State Courts Take A Stand, Mary A. Crossley

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note examines how state courts have interpreted state constitutional guarantees of the privilege against self-incrimination independently of the Supreme Court's construction of the fifth amendment. Part II focuses on the historical and theoretical underpinnings of state constitutional law and examines state courts'renewed reliance on their state constitutions. Part III discusses the Supreme Court's interpretation of the fifth amendment in Miranda and its progeny. Part IV presents the states' response to Supreme Court holdings and surveys state court decisions interpreting state constitutions' self-incrimination provisions more broadly than the fifth amendment. Finally, Part V examines the potential for further growth in …

State Courts And The Federal System, Griffin B. Bell

Vanderbilt Law Review

One of the more important aspects of federalism lies in the relationship which has been established between state and federal courts. The interworkings of the judicial process involve power in some in-stances and principles of comity in others. The purpose of this article is to examine this relationship, including possible areas of abrasion resulting from the interworkings between the two court systems.

The Use Of Coerced Confessions In State Courts, J. A. Spanogle

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is now well settled that involuntary confessions must be excluded from evidence in all criminal trials in state courts. It has been difficult, however, to distinguish a voluntary confession from an involuntary one, because the term "involuntary" is not well defined. This lack of definition, which creates great problems for state trial and appellate courts in attempting to apply the rule to individual cases, has, in turn, stemmed from a lack of understanding of the reasons for excluding involuntary confessions. The United States Supreme Court has handed down thirty-four coerced confession cases, holding confessions admissible in some factual situations …

Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jurisdictional problem peculiar to a case which involves more than one claim is: Shall the court entertain the entire action when it would have jurisdiction of one or more of the claims, but not all, if they were sued separately?' The application of this question to the United States district courts raises conflicting considerations. On the one hand is the fact that most of the claims which would not be within federal jurisdiction if sued alone, present questions of state rather than federal law. In general the more appropriate tribunals to deal with such questions in the first instance …

The Common Law: An Account Of Its Reception In The United States, Ford W. Hall

Vanderbilt Law Review

The story of the extent to which the common law of England has been received and applied in the United States, is one of the most interesting and important chapters in American legal history. However, many courts and writers have shown a tendency simply to say that our colonial forefathers brought the common law of England with them, and there has often been little or no inclination to look further into the question. Nevertheless, the problem of the reception of the common law in America has at various times occupied the attention of many of our most eminent jurists and …

State Constitutions, State Courts And First Amendment Freedoms, Monrad G. Paulsen

Vanderbilt Law Review

We have recently been reminded that one of the current and recurrent quandaries of the Supreme Court of the United States arises from the American constitutional system's counterpart of the philosophical problem of the One and the Many. When an individual's freedom is involved, the question is whether and to what degree state legislators, public officials and judicial officers shall be called upon to enforce standards of respect for personal liberties defined by the Federal Constitution and the United States Supreme Court; or, put another way, how far the first eight amendments of the Federal Constitution are incorporated into the …