Law Commons^™

A Public Calling: Lessons From The Lives Of Judges Of Color In Pennsylvania, Phoebe A. Haddon

Phoebe A. Haddon

This paper discusses how Judge Clifford Scott Green, Judge William Marutani, and Judge Juanita Kidd Stout spent their lives as leaders in the law to illustrate the ideal of a "public calling."

The Better Part Of Valor: The Real Id Act, Discretion, And The “Rule” Of Immigration Law, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

This article considers the problems raised by a federal law--the “REAL ID Act”--that seeks to preclude judicial review of discretionary immigration law decisions. Discretion, the flexible shock absorber of the administrative state, must be respected by our legal system. However, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote, discretion is, “only to be respected when it is conscious of the traditions which surround it and of the limits which an informed conscience sets to its exercise.” The article suggests that judicial construction of the REAL ID Act will plumb the deep meaning of this qualification. The new law states, essentially, that constitutional …

Labor Disputes In Professional Sports: How Federal Judges Referee Antitrust Lawsuits-- False Starts And Technical Fouls, Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Using a database of 83 published court opinions from 1970-2011, I show that players have utilized conflicting federal laws to improve their labor market mobility. They formed unions under the National Labor Relations Act, and bargained collectively with leagues. Often, however, they lacked bargaining power to modify the draft or reserve clause, which bound them to a team. Players sued, therefore, under the Sherman Act to challenge these practices as restraints of trade. Thus, players have used a dual engagement strategy of bargaining with leagues under the NLRA while holding identical negotiations under the threat of Sherman Act treble damages. …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Watching The Hen House: Judicial Review Of Judicial Rulemaking, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

Courts regularly engage in rulemaking of questionable constitutionality, then exercise the exclusive jurisdiction of judicial review to rule on constitutional challenges to the rules that they themselves have promulgated, obfuscating the appearance of impartiality and accountability and preventing the unsophisticated from realizing that a benefit has been conferred on a more sophisticated faction.

Quasi-legislative judicial rulemaking that has resulted from Congressional delegations of rulemaking authority to the courts is increasingly prevalent in the past half century, the result of which is a multi-tiered system of consultation, review, and revision that depends heavily upon nonlegislative actors and a Balkanization of the …

Judging Genes: Implications Of The Second Generation Of Genetic Tests In The Courtroom, Diane E. Hoffmann, Karen H. Rothenberg

Diane Hoffmann

The use of DNA tests for identification has revolutionized court proceedings in criminal and paternity cases. Now, requests by litigants to admit or compel a second generation of genetic tests – tests to confirm or predict genetic diseases and conditions – threaten to affect judicial decision-making in many more contexts. Unlike DNA tests for identification, these second generation tests may provide highly personal health and behavioral information about individuals and their relatives and will pose new challenges for trial court judges. This article reports on an original empirical study of how judges analyze these requests and uses the study results …

Incommensurability, Practices And Points Of View: Revitalizing H.La. Hart’S Practice Theory Of Rules, Eric J. Miller

Eric J. Miller

The standard reading of H.L.A. Hart’s practice theory of rules is that it failed to provide a sufficient normative basis for a theory of law. That standard reading rests upon a significant misunderstanding: that Hart has an exclusionary reason approach to law. Instead, Hart understands law to be a social practice, one capable of generating valid norms that not only block the operation of moral norms, but which are wholesale incommensurable with them.

Wholesale incommensurability entails that law, as a form of social practice, constitutes a discrete normative system in which the truth-conditions of legal propositions are distinct from the …

Dora And William Donner Were Busy People, Richard H. Maloy

Richard Maloy

No abstract provided.

Civil Protective Orders In Integrated Domestic Violence Court: An Empirical Study, Erika Rickard

Erika Rickard

New York's Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court was created to streamline the judicial process and promote efficiency and victim safety in cases of domestic violence. One would expect this collaboration and concerted effort on improving the justice system for victims of domestic violence would yield faster results than under the traditional system. The data presented here indicate just the opposite: IDV Courts take longer to address motions for civil protective orders, and are not significantly more likely to grant such orders than traditional matrimonial courts. Delays in the civil protective order process suggest that the problem-solving court may not be …

Checking The Staats: How Long Is Too Long To Give Adequate Public Notice In Broadening Reissue Patent Applications?, David M. Longo

David M. Longo

No abstract provided.

Finding Room For Fairness In Formalism--The Sliding Scale Approach To Unconscionability, Melissa T. Lonegrass

Melissa T. Lonegrass

No abstract provided.

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Abigail R. Moncrieff

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into the structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism is surprising, however, given that judges frequently choose indirect methods, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation, for protecting substantive constitutional values. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another recently theorized as …

The Reality Of Eu-Conformity Review In France, Juscelino F. Colares

Juscelino F. Colares

French High Courts embraced review of national legislation for conformity with EU law in different stages and following distinct approaches to EU law supremacy. This article tests whether adherence to different views on EU law supremacy has resulted in different levels of EU directive enforcement by the French High Courts. After introducing the complex French systems of statutory, treaty and constitutional review, this study explains how EU-conformity review emerged among these systems and provides an empirical analysis refuting the anecdotal view that different EU supremacy theories produce substantial differences in conformity adjudication outcomes. These Courts' uniformly high rates of EU …

Information Sharing In A Common Law Of Sentencing: A Skeptic's Guide, Ryan W. Scott

Ryan W. Scott

For decades, prominent scholars and judges have called for the development of a “common law of sentencing” in the United States. One strand of scholarship stresses the information sharing function of the common law: sentencing judges need access to a body of written opinions that reveals how other courts have handled similar cases. The idea is that, fueled by better information, case-by-case common law reasoning will promote inter-judge consistency and rationality in sentencing law. This Article takes a skeptical view, identifying three sets of challenges for an information-sharing approach. First, there are daunting information-collection challenges. A healthy common law depends …

"Not That Smart": Sonia Sotomayor And The Construction Of Merit, Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr., Mitu G. Gulati Mr., Daniel L. Chen Dr.

Guy-Uriel E. Charles Mr.

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such …

Originalism And The Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’S Home In Originalism, Lee Strang

Lee J Strang

A concept fundamental to philosophy—virtue—is, with a few notable exceptions, absent from scholarship on constitutional interpretation generally, and originalism in particular. Furthermore, common perceptions of both virtue ethics and originalism have prevented exploration of how incorporating virtue ethics’ insights may make originalism a better theory of constitutional interpretation. This Article fills that void by explaining the many ways in which concepts from virtue ethics are compatible with an originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. More importantly, I show that originalism is more normatively attractive and descriptively accurate when it takes on board virtue ethics’ insights.

Originalism must articulate virtue’s role in …

New Evidence On Appeal, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Appellate review is limited, almost by definition, to consideration of the factual record as established in the trial court. Adhering to this record review principle, appellate courts generally reject out of hand any effort to supplement the appellate record with evidence that was not considered by the court below.

There are, however, exceptions to this traditional principle. Whether presented through amicus briefs, social-science-laden “Brandeis Briefs,” petitions for discretionary review, or other mechanisms for supplementing the record, appellate courts often consider and rely upon new evidence. The literature regarding both the traditional rule and the exceptions is limited, and neither courts …

Does Three Do The Trick In The Ninth? The Liberal Ninth Circuit – Myth Or Fact: How The Three Judge Panel, And A System Of Published And Unpublished Opinions Interact With Political Appointments In The Ninth Circuit, Rachel N. Agress

Rachel N. Agress

This article examines the persistent view that the Ninth Circuit is “overly liberal,” and attempts to evaluate this outlook in light of data collected regarding two variables. The first variable is the composition of individual political orientations of judges on the Ninth Circuit as compared to the political composition of other circuit courts. To achieve this comparison, this paper looks at political appointments and classified judges as “liberal” or “conservative,” based on political appointment by a Democratic or Republican president. Further, this article delineates the current percentage of “liberal” versus “conservative” judges in each circuit, comparing the average circuit court …

The Racial Metamorphosis Of Justice Kennedy, With An Eye Towards The End Of The Second Reconstruction, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

This Essay examines the recent turn in Justice Kennedy’s race jurisprudence. The shift is palpable, from a narrow and uncompromising approach to the use of race by state actors to a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the role that race plays in American society. This is no small change, best explained by Justice Kennedy’s status on the Court as a “super median.” This is a position of power and influence, as any majority coalition must count on Justice Kennedy’s vote; but more importantly, it is also a position of true independence. Justice Kennedy entertains his idiosyncratic and very personal …

The Second-Class Class Action: How Courts Thwart Wage Rights By Misapplying Class Action Rules, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Scott A Moss

Courts apply to wage rights cases an aggressive scrutiny that not only disadvantages low-wage workers, but is fundamentally incorrect on the law. Rule 23 class actions automatically cover all potential members if the court grants plaintiffs’ class certification motion. But for certain employment rights cases – mainly wage claims but also age discrimination and gender equal pay claims – 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows not class actions but “collective actions” covering just those opting in affirmatively. Courts in collective actions assume a gatekeeper role as they do in Rule 23 class action, disallowing many actions by requiring a certification motion …

Beyond Saints And Sinners: Discretion And The Need For New Narratives In The U.S. Immigration System, Elizabeth Keyes

Elizabeth Keyes

This article examines the forces affecting the exercise of discretion in American immigration courts, and argues that in this present age of immigration anxiety, the same facts that place an individual in deportation proceedings may constitute the reasons a judge will, relying on discretion, deny them relief for which they are otherwise eligible. The article explores the polarized narratives told about “good” and ”bad” immigrants, the exceptionally difficult task of adjudicating in overburdened immigration courts, and the ways in which these polarized narratives interact with psychological short-cuts, or heuristics, that affect judicial exercises of discretion. After engaging in this analysis, …

A Farewell To Harms: Presuming Irreparable Injury In Constitutional Litigation, Anthony Disarro

Anthony DiSarro

Although it is an essential element to obtaining injunctive relief, most federal circuit courts have held that irreparable injury can be presumed in constitutional cases. The Supreme Court has not addressed a presumption of irreparable harm in the constitutional context but it has disapproved of the practice for federal statutory claims. This article argues that the presumption is improper. The history of the injunctive remedy in this country suggests that irreparable injury is an essential element of proof that should be applied in all cases. Indeed, although constitutional rights are of paramount importance in our legal system, the fact that …