Law Commons^™

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment's Protections Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order …

Judge Harold Baer's Quixotic Crusade For Class Counsel Diversity, Michael H. Hurwitz

Michael H Hurwitz

In this comment, the author discusses the recent rulings of U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. directing that proposed class counsel provide evidence of its racial and gender diversity. After summarizing the provisions of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern the appointment of class counsel, the author analyzes Judge Baer’s rulings in light of Rule 23(g)’s requirements. The author concludes that Judge Baer’s rulings are inconsistent with the Rule’s requirements and, instead, represent the judge’s effort to impose his own policy views over the interests of the class members served by the Rule’s narrow …

Is Three A Crowd? The Role Of The Courts In Sec Settlements, Samantha A. Dreilinger

samantha a dreilinger

In August 2009 Judge Jed Rakoff made the unprecedented decision to reject a settlement proposed by the SEC and Bank of America. Although Judge Rakoff eventually approved the agreement, his decision appears to have sparked a trend of judicial scrutiny for SEC settlements. In contrast with the long tradition of judicial deference, some courts are now requiring evidence that the proposed provisions are "fair, reasonable and in the public interest." In order to promote justice, judges are also questioning light penalties and why executives are not being held accountable for the alleged misconduct of a corporate defendant. Critics of this …

What Do We Mean By An Independent Judiciary, Michael P. Seng

Michael P. Seng

Judicial independence has roots in separation of powers and in ethical standards that require judges to be competent and impartial. Judicial independence depends upon society having faith in the integrity of the courts. Accountability is thus the handmaid of an independent judiciary. This article defines both the structure and the ethical standards that insure an independent judiciary.

Racial Disproportionality In Child Welfare: False Logic And Dangerous Misunderstandings, Jesse Russell

Jesse Russell

Disproportionality and disparities in child welfare appear to be widely recognized, if not fully understood, phenomena. There is often disagreement on how to interpret or find meaning in the empirical evidence that supports the existence of disproportionality and disparities—some the result of fertile and valuable discussion, some stemming from misunderstanding. Several potential paths of misinterpretation are examined here: the ecological fallacy concept, the fallacy of hidden assumptions, the lessons from different measures of disproportionality, the difficulty in understanding how probabilities relate to each other, and the effect that multicolinearity can have on statistical findings. Ultimately, better understanding of empirical findings …

The Fiduciary Theory Of Governmental Legitimacy And The Natural Charter Of The Judiciary, Luke A. Wake

Luke A. Wake

In legal academia, there are various claims as to the proper role of the courts and the standard of review to be employed in evaluating claims of right. These competing judicial philosophies have been the subject of great debate in recent years. Yet underlying these debates is the question of rights and whether men are entitled, in justice, to assurances of personal autonomy, or whether the concept of rights is a mere legal fiction.

In a recent article in the Journal of Law and Philosophy, Evan Fox-Decent argues that individuals are entitled, at a minimum, to certain guarantees of bodily …

Does The Readability Of Your Brief Affect Your Chance Of Winning An Appeal?--An Analysis Of Readability In Appellate Briefs And Its Correlation With Success On Appeal, Lance N. Long, William F. Christensen

Lance N. Long

The study described in this article suggests that the length of sentences and words, which is “readability” for our purposes, probably does not make much difference in appellate brief writing. First, we found that most briefs are written at about the same level of readability; there simply is not much difference in how lawyers write appellate briefs when it comes to the length of sentences and words. Furthermore, the readability of most appellate briefs is well within the reading ability of the highly educated audience of appellate judges and justices. Second, the relatively small differences in readability are not related …

An Empirical Study Of Settlement Conference Nuts And Bolts: Settlement Judges Facilitating Communication, Compromise And Fear, Peter R. Robinson

Peter R. Robinson

No abstract provided.

Completing Ely's Representation Reinforcing Theory Of Judicial Review By Accounting For The Constitutional Values Of State Citizenship, Shane Pennington

Shane Pennington

John Hart Ely famously proposed a representation reinforcing theory of judicial review. Ely said that the Constitution embodies certain procedural principles that make the ideal of American representative democracy possible. Thus, where courts find that the political process has broken down, putting that republican goal out of reach, they must step in and exercise judicial review to correct for the procedural breakdown and to reinforce the representational principles the Constitution embodies.

Whether Ely’s theory is constructed on a foundation of sand or stone depends—to a large extent—on the rigor of his conception of “American representative democracy,” which he gleans largely …

Judicial Independence In Light Of The Basic Principles On The Independence Of The Judiciary: Who Has The Right Idea?, Ubaid Ul-Haq

Ubaid ul-Haq

Judicial independence is a crucial component inherent in the proper and effective administration of any government. Critical to this doctrine is the larger requirement of a separation of powers, which must be established before attempting to affect any concept of judicial independence. Judicial independence essentially represents a judiciary’s ability to render decisions free of improper influences, both internal and external. The United Nations has set forth a minimum standard of judicial independence with which States should seek to comply in order to protect civil liberties and in a greater sense, human rights. Evaluating the jurisdictions of Canada, Jamaica, and the …

Juristocracy In The Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence In Drug Treatment Courts And Unified Family Courts, Richard C. Boldt, Jana B. Singer

Richard C. Boldt

This article explores the role of judges on two types of “problem-solving courts”: drug treatment courts and unified family courts. It compares the behavior these “problem-solving” judges to more traditional models of judicial behavior and to activist judging at the appellate level. The authors conclude that the judges who serve on these problem-solving courts have largely repudiated the classical judicial virtues of restraint, disinterest and modesty in favor of a more activist and therapeutic stance. However, the causes and consequences of this role-shift are complex. In particular, the authors suggest that the proliferation of problem solving courts and judges is …

Judicial Independence In Light Of The Basic Principles On The Independence Of The Judiciary: Who Has The Right Idea?, Ubaid Ul-Haq

Ubaid ul-Haq

Judicial independence is a crucial component inherent in the proper and effective administration of any government. Critical to this doctrine is the larger requirement of a separation of powers, which must be established before attempting to affect any concept of judicial independence. Judicial independence essentially represents a judiciary’s ability to render decisions free of improper influences, both internal and external. The United Nations has set forth a minimum standard of judicial independence with which States should seek to comply in order to protect civil liberties and in a greater sense, human rights. Evaluating the jurisdictions of Canada, Jamaica, and the …

The Pinkerton Problem, Bruce A. Antkowiak

Bruce A Antkowiak

Pinkerton is a longstanding principle of criminal law that holds a conspirator liable for the substantive crimes of his confederates as long as they were committed during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and as long as they were objectively and reasonably foreseeable to a defendant. This leads to liability being imposed on individuals who did not personally have the mens rea required to commit the crime for which they are sentenced. The article argues that the use of such conspirator liability rules in many jurisdictions (federal and state) violates both due process and separation of powers …

Live Hearings And Paper Trials, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing or trial, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing live testimony than if the judges were to review …

Constitutional Pathology, The War On Terror, And United States V. Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

In The Irrepressible Myth of Klein (UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2010) I discuss the meaning, scope, and continued relevance of the Supreme Court's historic decision in United States v. Klein (1871), arguing that Klein is not the judicially powerful a precedent many believe it to be. In this follow-up essay, I apply the insights of my analysis and exposure of Klein’s myths to two major pieces of legislation enacted as part of the ongoing War on Terror: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in warrantless domestic surveillance) and the Military Commissions Act …

The Florida Beach Case And The Road To Judicial Takings, Michael Blumm

Michael Blumm

In Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a state beach restoration project against landowner claims of an unconstitutional taking of the property. This result was not nearly as surprising as the fact that the Court granted certiorari on a case that turned on an obscure aspect of Florida property law: whether landowners adjacent to a beach had the right to maintain contact with the water and the right to future accretions of sand.

The Court’s curious interest in the case was piqued by the landowners’ recasting the case from the …

Rationing Justice?: The Effect Of Caseload Pressures On The U.S. Courts Of Appeals In Immigration Cases, Anna O. Law

Anna O. Law

Beginning in late 2003, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits experienced a deluge of immigration cases caused by changes in another part of the immigration bureaucracy. How did these two circuits, especially the Ninth circuit and its personnel, which handle more than 50% of all immigration appeals nationwide, respond to the "immigration surge" as it came to be called? Using interview data from 25% of the active judges on the court and some central staff, the article examines the series of internal experiments in case management that the Ninth Circuit was forced to undertake in …

War Courts: Terror's Distorting Effects On Federal Courts, Collin P. Wedel

Collin P Wedel

In recent years, federal courts have tried an increasing number of suspected terrorists. In fact, since 2001, federal courts have convicted over 403 people for terrorism-related crimes. Although much has been written about the normative question of where terrorists should be tried, scant research exists about the impact these recent trials have had upon the Article III court system. The debate, rather, has focused almost exclusively upon the proper venue for these trials and the hypothetical problems and advantages that might inhere in each venue. The war in Afghanistan, presenting a host of thorny legal issues, is now the longest …

May It Please The Senate: An Empirical Analysis Of The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Of Supreme Court Nominees, 1939-2009, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins

Lori A. Ringhand

This paper examines the questions asked and answers given by every Supreme Court nominee who has appeared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1939. In doing so, it uses a new dataset developed by the authors. This dataset, which provides a much-needed empirical foundation for scholarship in emerging areas of constitutional law and political science, captures all of the statements made at the hearings and codes these comments by issue area, subissue area, party of the appointing president, and party of the questioning senator. The dataset allows us to quantify for the fist time such things as which …

The Path Of Posner's Pragmatism, Edward Cantu

Edward Cantu

It is no secret that formalist methodologies like originalism are not nearly as scientific as they pretend to be. Banking on this fact, pragmatism offers a prescriptive alternative: instead of expending intellectual energy attempting “fidelity” to antecedent “authority” (precedent, Framers’ intent, etc.) judges should embrace their inevitable roles as de facto policy makers, and focus on producing the best social results they can through the cases they decide. The article discusses the current state of legal pragmatism in the form espoused by its chief proponent Judge Richard Posner, and asks whether it has proven itself capable of contributing anything useful …

White Male Heterosexist Norms In The Confirmation Process, Theresa M. Beiner

Theresa M. Beiner

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing took a controversial turn when commentators picked up on a reference in the New York Times to a portion of a speech she gave in 2001. In that speech, then Judge Sotomayor opined that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That statement, along with her participation in the per curiam decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, caused a minor storm during her confirmation. More recently, former Harvard Dean and former …

Resurrecting The Argument For Judicial Empathy: Can A Dead Duck Be Successfully Repackaged For Sale To A Skeptical Public?, Tobin Sparling

Tobin Sparling

President Obama's campaign to promote judicial empathy has proved a failure, rejected by his own judicial nominees and the public at large. Based on an examination of current popular conceptions of justice and a survey of scientific understanding of what empathy is and how it works, this article examines whether judicial empathy is a cause worth saving and, if so, whether it can, indeed, be saved. It argues that the advocacy of judicial empathy can and should be revived and suggests a strategy for politicians, judges, and others who desire to promote it. This strategy operates from two basic presumptions. …

Ending The Korematsu Era: A Modern Approach, Craig Green

Roger Craig Green

This Article seeks to transform how readers think of Korematsu v. United States, thereby offering a more accurate view of the past and stronger barriers against presidential abuse. Korematsu is conventionally listed among the worst cases in American law, but its wrongness is understood far too narrowly. If Korematsu were just a case about racist internments, it would be a truly unique blot in Supreme Court history: powerfully mistaken but almost completely irrelevant to modern legal disputes.

Despite Korematsu’s extraordinary facts, the case stands in a thematic cluster of cases from World War II that I will call the “Korematsu …

Prophylactic Rules And State Constitutionalism, Arthur Leavens

Arthur Leavens

The article looks at state-constitutional expansion of federal prophylactic rules, e.g., Miranda's required warnings, and asks whether it is conceptually legitimate for a state court, under its state constitution, to expand the protection of what is a federal constitutional rule. Even if one takes a conservative view of a state's prerogative to expand cognate constitutional rights, the article argues that unilateral state expansion of prophylactic rules is justifiable. Because the purpose of a prophylactic rule is to guide lower courts in implementing a broader constitutional principle, such a rule -- while surely of constitutional status -- is by nature subject …

Self-Conscious Dicta: The Origins Of Roe V. Wade's Trimester Framework, Randy Beck

Randy Beck

One of the controversies arising from Roe v. Wade (1973) has concerned whether the conclusions undergirding the opinion's “trimester framework” should be considered part of the holding of the case, or instead classified as dicta. Different Supreme Court opinions have spoken to this question in different ways. This article reviews materials from the files of Justices who participated in Roe, seeking insight as to what the Court thought about the issue at the time.

The article concludes that Justices in the Roe majority understood the opinion’s trimester framework to consist largely of dicta, unnecessary to a ruling on the constitutionality …

Democracy At The Corner Of First And Fourteenth: Judicial Campaign Spending And Equality, James Sample

James Sample

This Article posits that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., which recognized that substantial independent expenditures in support of a judicial candidate present threats to judicial impartiality similar to those posed by direct contributions, suggests that guaranteeing due process of law in state courts presents a compelling state interest justifying the regulation of spending in judicial elections.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo is understood to hold that only an “anti-corruption” rationale can justify campaign finance regulations, and to draw a rigid distinction between political campaign “expenditures” and “contributions,” holding …

Are Arbitrators Above The Law? The "Manifest Disregard Of The Law" Standard, Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Arbitration is supposed to be final and binding. But federal and state laws, and judicial doctrines, allow courts to vacate arbitrator awards. This study contemplates the role of courts when they review awards that “manifestly disregard the law”— a term that means the arbitrator knew the law but chose to ignore it. Given the norm of arbitral finality, should courts vacate these rulings?

Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), failed to answer this question. The parties asked a court to review their award for errors of law. This standard is not in the Federal Arbitration Act …

Saying “I’M Sorry” Is Not So Simple: Embracing The Complexity Of The Apology With A New Evidentiary Rule, Amy Poyer

Amy Poyer

Apologies are everywhere. In day-to-day life, when a person apologizes, they must deal with a myriad of consequences for that apology. These may include vulnerability to the victim, embarrassment, a bruised ago, or even rejection of the apology by the victim. However, when the wrong one apologizes for turns into a lawsuit, the one apologizing has an additional penalty. Piled on to the emotional consequences that accompany any apology, a potential defendant must also worry about his apology’s use against him in court to prove that he is liable. Recently, a debate has developed over whether or not the law …

The Partisan Dimensions Of Federal Preemption In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Bradley Joondeph

Bradley W. Joondeph

This paper explores some of these empirical uncertainties surrounding the political dimensions of preemption in the federal courts. More concretely, it presents a statistical study of every preemption decision rendered by the United States Courts of Appeals from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009, a total of 560 decisions and just over 1,700 judicial votes. And these data tell a story consisting of two distinct parts. The first part is that preemption disputes seem to produce a large measure of judicial consensus. In the full universe of cases, there is only a slight difference between Republican and Democratic appointees: …

Serious Disagreement: Same-Sex Marriage, Judicial Review, And The Quality Of Debate, Rob Goodman

Rob Goodman

Both defenders and critics of strong judicial review have relied on claims about the quality of debate in courts: the former, such as Ronald Dworkin, have characterized it as more principled than legislative debate, while the later, such as Jeremy Waldron, have called it overly-focused on text and precedent, to the detriment of substantive moral argument. The question can and should be studied empirically. To begin to do so, I compare American legislative and judicial debates, on the federal and state levels, on same-sex marriage. While legislatures and courts often heard similar arguments, the marriage debate in the courts took …