Law Commons^™

The Judicial Grassroots Of The "Arbitration Revolution", Tamar Meshel

William & Mary Business Law Review

The “arbitration revolution”—the meteoric rise in the use of arbitration in the United States—is commonly imputed to the Supreme Court’s unilateral and ideologically driven expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The portrayal of the FAA’s evolution as a campaign launched by a Supreme Court that is out of touch with society and with the judicial system over which it presides usefully serves to delegitimize both this one-hundred year-old statute and arbitration more generally. This Article argues that the popular description of the Supreme Court as the sole instigator of the “arbitration revolution” is misleading because it conveniently ignores a …

Securities And Exchange Commission Vs. Kim Kardashian, Cryptocurrencies And The "Major Questions Doctrine", Jerry W. Markham

William & Mary Business Law Review

The SEC has brought some highly publicized enforcement actions against Kim Kardashian and other celebrity social media influencers who received undisclosed payments for their endorsement of cryptocurrencies. This Article describes those cases and analyzes whether the SEC exceeds its authority under the Constitutional “major questions doctrine” recently applied by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA. That doctrine prohibits a federal agency from regulating activities that raise a major question that Congress, rather than the agency, must resolve. Such a question is one in which there is major political and economic interest and over which the agency has …

The Article Iii "Party" And The Originalist Case Against Corporate Diversity Jurisdiction, Mark Moller, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Law Review

Federal courts control an outsize share of big-ticket corporate litigation. And that control rests, to a significant degree, on the Supreme Court’s extension of Article III’s Diversity of Citizenship Clause to corporations. Yet, critics have questioned the constitutionality of corporate diversity jurisdiction from the beginning.

In this Article and a previous one, we develop the first sustained critique of corporate diversity jurisdiction.

Our previous article demonstrated that corporations are not “citizens” given the original meaning of that word. But we noted this finding alone doesn’t sink general corporate diversity jurisdiction. The ranks of corporate shareholders include many undoubted “citizens.” And …

Core And Periphery In Constitutional Law, R. George Wright

William & Mary Law Review Online

This paper embarks on an excursion through a number of the most vital constitutional rights cases, and other contexts as well, and seeks to show that the recurring judicial attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas within any given broad constitutional right are unnecessary and distracting. Intriguingly, the case for this conclusion varies significantly depending upon the nature of the general constitutional right in question. But the overall lesson is that courts should abandon their attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas of any given broad constitutional right. Courts should instead focus—directly or indirectly—on their best assessment of …

Judges And Mass Incarceration, Carissa Byrne Hessick

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

It seems to have fallen out of fashion to talk about judges as a source of criminal justice reform. Instead, the academic literature now focuses on the role that prosecutors and legislatures have played in mass incarceration. But judges have also played an important role in the phenomenon that has come to be known as mass incarceration. Perhaps more importantly, there are things that judges could do to help reverse that trend.

Judges will sometimes say our system is too harsh. But, in the same breath they tell us the decision to create such a system and the decision to …

Another Bite At The Apple Or The Same Bite? Characterizing Habeas Petitions On Appeal As Pending Instead Of Fully Adjudicated, Gregory Winder

William & Mary Law Review

[...] One of the Act's [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] most significant aspects is its restriction on the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Responding to this restriction, prisoners have attempted to circumvent the AEDPA through a number of different procedural routes with varying degrees of success.

This Note examines the circuit split that has emerged for one of those procedural attempts—motions to amend habeas petitions following adjudication on the merits and while on appeal in a circuit court. This Note argues that allowing amendment of habeas petitions on appeal is both consistent with the history of habeas corpus …

Liberalism Triumphant? Ideology And The En Banc Process In The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, Arthur D. Hellman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

More than 40 years ago, President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, appointed 15 of the then-23 judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Those judges were predominantly liberal, and some were extremely liberal. Ever since then, the Ninth Circuit has been widely regarded as “a reliably liberal appeals court” that predictably issues “rulings favorable to liberal causes.” But some knowledgeable commentators, including Professor (now Dean) Erwin Chemerinsky, have disputed the characterization, calling it a “myth.”

Until now, no one has empirically tested whether the Ninth Circuit is indeed the liberal bastion that it is reputed to be. That is the …

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: The Supreme Court Misses Its "Shot" At Clarifying State Alcohol Regulations And The Commerce Clause, Josephine Battles

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court erred by denying certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The Texas statute that bans all publicly traded corporations from obtaining a license to sell liquor, but carves an exception for some Texas-run public corporations through an express clause, is in direct violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Texas Legislature disguised the public corporation ban as a “facially neutral” alcohol regulation, however, the ban is discriminatory towards out-of-state competitors in both its purpose and effect. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores is firmly inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the …

Thoughts Regarding The Application Of The Step Transaction Doctrine To The Section 351 Control Requirement And Complex Media, Inc. V. Commissioner, Philip G. Cohen

William & Mary Business Law Review

Over thirty years ago, Professor Ronald H. Jensen authored an article in the Virginia Tax Review, titled “Of Form and Substance: Tax Free Incorporations and Other Transactions Under Section 351.” Professor Jensen asserted that it was inappropriate to utilize the step transaction doctrine to determine whether the control requirement was met in a purported section 351 transaction, involving a disposition of some, or all, of the transferor’s shares even if effected by a binding contract made prior to the contribution.

Professor Jensen concluded that the courts and the Internal Revenue Service (Service) have produced a hodgepodge of intellectually inconsistent decisions …

Docket Selection And Judicial Responsiveness: The Use Of Ai In The Colombian Constitutional Court, Pablo Rueda Saiz

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article addresses some of the limitations of AI as a tool to preselect a long or shortlist of cases for a court at the apex of the judicial system to review. It focuses on the Colombian Constitutional Court, as an example of a court at the apex of the judicial system that has been historically responsive to claims for fundamental rights. Docket selection is an example of a classification problem using supervised learning, in which a machine groups data according to preestablished characteristics.

This Article draws from two different bodies of literature to analyze the consequences of using AI …

"Very Complex Questions": Zoos, Animals, And The Law, Dana Mirsky

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

In Sulawesi, Indonesia—forty-five thousand years ago, an artist painted what is now the world’s oldest known cave painting—a life-size image of a wild pig. Forty thousand years later, the elite of Hierakonpolis, Egypt, housed elephants, hippos, and baboons in the world’s oldest known zoo. Today, individuals keep exotic fish, reptiles, and birds as pets while zoos and aquariums display some of the largest and rarest animals on the planet. The human fascination with wild animals is clearly not a new phenomenon, but how and why we keep wild animals have evolved over time. Zoos in particular have changed dramatically just …

Why The Congressional Review Act Should Be Repealed, Alex Lipow

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) is a procedure that allows the political branches to quickly repeal certain regulations promulgated by administrative agencies without going through the arduous rule-making process traditionally required. Although it had been successfully used only once before 2017, President Trump and Republicans in Congress used the CRA to repeal sixteen regulations in 2017 and 2018 while President Biden and Democrats in Congress used the CRA three times in 2021. Because the CRA has been used rarely, and its central provisions are barely adjudicated in the judiciary, there are interesting legal questions about how expansively the law may …

Article Iii Standing, The Sword And The Shield: Resolving A Circuit Split In Favor Of Data Breach Plaintiffs, R. Andrew Grindstaff

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The recent proliferation of data breaches is one such event requiring a rethreading of standing doctrine. The Courts of Appeal are currently split on whether to allow or deny standing for data breach plaintiffs—those persons seeking recourse from the entities that fell victim to the breach and therein lost plaintiffs’ data to an unknown third party. Standing requires plaintiffs to show some injury, and how courts approach the concept of injury in these data breach cases determines whether plaintiffs will survive the standing analysis. Despite the disparate treatment of litigants across the circuits, the Supreme Court has repeatedly punted when …

Fraud Against Financial Institutions: Judging Materiality Post-Escobar, Matthew A. Edwards

William & Mary Business Law Review

In Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), the Supreme Court held that proof of materiality is required for convictions under the federal mail, wire and bank fraud statutes. During the past 20 years, the federal courts have endeavored to apply the complex common law concept of materiality to the federal criminal law context. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), a civil case involving the False Claims Act, provided the federal appellate courts with an ideal opportunity to reconsider materiality standards in federal fraud …

Revolving Doors Of Hospitalization And Incarceration: How Perceptions Of Procedural Justice Affect Treatment Outcomes, Maria Slater

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article compares the levels of procedural justice afforded to persons with severe mental illness in the civil and criminal systems, either via involuntary commitment in state psychiatric hospitals in the civil system or via mental health court as an alternative to incarceration in the criminal system. Using Virginia’s mental health courts and civil commitment systems as case studies, this Article compares the procedures by which a person can be involuntary committed in the civil system with those afforded to persons who are funneled into mental health treatment courts in the criminal system, analyzing how levels of procedural justice—both actual …

Judging History: How Judicial Discretion In Applying Originalist Methodology Affects The Outcome Of Post-Heller Second Amendment Cases, Mark Anthony Frassetto

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article aims to assess how the federal appellate courts have applied the originalist methodology in Second Amendment cases in the decade since Heller. It reviews how courts’ varying approaches to historical analysis—specifically, how courts have addressed what historical period to look to, how prevalent a historical tradition must be, and whether to address history at a high or low level of generality—can drastically affect the outcome of cases. As Justice Scalia acknowledged in McDonald, “Historical analysis can be difficult; it sometimes requires resolving threshold questions, and making nuanced judgments about which evidence to consult and how to …

Who Will Save The Redheads? Towards An Anti-Bully Theory Of Judicial Review And Protection Of Democracy, Yaniv Roznai

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Democracy is in crisis throughout the world. And courts play a key role within this process as a main target of populist leaders and in light of their ability to hinder administrative, legal, and constitutional changes. Focusing on the ability of courts to block constitutional changes, this Article analyzes the main tensions situated at the heart of democratic erosion processes around the world: the conflict between substantive and formal notions of democracy; a conflict between believers and nonbelievers that courts can save democracy; and the tension between strategic and legal considerations courts consider when they face pressure from political branches. …

The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Most academic studies of standing have focused on restrictions on federal court jurisdiction drawn from Article III of U.S. Constitution and related doctrinal schemes developed by state courts. These rules are constructed atop a few words of the Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under various circumstances. The Supreme Court has interpreted these words to require federal courts to assess whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and redressable by a favorable ruling before proceeding to the merits of …

Against Congressional Case Snatching, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Atticus Deprospro

William & Mary Law Review

Congress has developed a deeply problematic habit of aggrandizing itself by snatching cases from the Article III courts. One form of contemporary case snatching involves directly legislating the outcome of pending litigation by statute. These laws do not involve generic amendments to existing statutes but rather dictate specific rulings by the Article III courts in particular cases. Another form of congressional case snatching involves rendering ongoing judicial proceedings essentially advisory by unilaterally permitting a disgruntled litigant to transfer a pending case from an Article III court to an executive agency for resolution. Both practices involve Congress reallocating the business of …

Judging Patents, Sapna Kumar

William & Mary Law Review

Patent litigation is regarded as the “neurosurgery of litigation.” To adjudicate these cases, judges must grasp complex technology underlying the claims at issue, notwithstanding the fact that many judges lack relevant science or technology backgrounds. This problem is compounded by the fact that judges generally lack access to neutral expertise, forcing them to rely upon party-hired experts for tutorials. By contrast, several European patent courts utilize technically qualified judges who work side by side with their legally trained counterparts to decide patent cases. The integration of technical expertise into the judiciary improves the speed of litigation, provides the court with …

Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court’s great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts’ deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court’s conservative Justices have blamed this development on “anti-death penalty activists” waging “guerilla war” on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by a range of …

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First Amendment …

Looking Beyond Batson: A Different Method Of Combating Bias Against Queer Jurors, Anna L. Tayman

William & Mary Law Review

On November 27, 1978, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California’s history, was murdered. He was shot five times, twice in the head. His murderer, Dan White, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served only five years in prison.

The Dan White trial is the most famous example of queer juror exclusion in American history. While White’s defense attorney, Douglas Schmidt, could not directly ask the jurors about their sexual orientation, he had another strategy: find the gays and allies and keep them out, and find the Catholics and keep them in. Schmidt struck a woman who …

The Court Should Not Let Politically Divided Times Affects Its Choices And Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Law Review

The Court should not let politically divided times affect its choices or decisions. Altering the Court’s role in politically divided times would require a definition of what qualifies as such an era and a theory of how to act in such times. Almost every era in American history could be deemed a politically divided time. Changing the Court’s role in politically divided times is inconsistent with its preeminent role: interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This role does not change, and should not change, in politically charged moments. Indeed, history shows that the Court cannot know what is likely to lessen …

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 …

Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea

William & Mary Law Review

President Trump’s daily tweets attacking the media have led many observers to express concern about the state of the press in our nation. Trump has called the press “the ... enemy of the [American] people,” encouraged a climate of hatred toward journalists at his rallies, refused to condemn Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and accused the media of writing “fake news.” The public’s trust in the institutional press has simultaneously diminished. Combined with the continuing economic challenges journalists face, the press is certainly facing some difficult times.

Nevertheless, things are not as dire as they …

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 …

Judging "Under Fire" And The Retreat To Facts, Allison Orr Larsen

William & Mary Law Review

Americans tend to worry about how our current polarized political climate will affect the legitimacy of our courts. Often overlooked in this important conversation is a discussion about what a toxic political dialogue can do—and in fact is doing—to the construction of the law itself. This Article will begin to make the case that judicial decisions themselves change as a result of high-intensity politics. Specifically, I will argue that when judges are “under fire” (to borrow a phrase from Planned Parenthood v. Casey), they tend to cloak their decisions in factual observations about the world that seem neutral and objective, …

Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy

William & Mary Law Review

When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …

Summary Dispositions As Precedent, Richard C. Chen

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s practice of summarily reversing decisions based on certiorari filings, without the benefit of merits briefing or oral argument, has recently come under increasing scrutiny. The practice is difficult to square with the Court’s stated criteria for granting certiorari and its norms against reviewing fact-bound cases to engage in mere error correction. Nonetheless, there is growing acceptance that the practice is likely to continue in some form, and the conversation has shifted to asking when the use of summary dispositions should be considered proper. Commentators have had no trouble identifying the Court’s tendencies: summary dispositions are most commonly …