Law Commons^™

How To Conclude A Brief, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay discusses the "conclusion" section of an appellate brief and its relationship to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appeals. The essay first reviews the relevant federal appellate rules--Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) and Supreme Court Rule 24.1(j)--and explains the author's preference for short, precise, remedy-oriented conclusions, shorn of repetitive argument. It illustrates these points with examples from recently filed appellate briefs. The essay then turns to problems of argument ordering in multi-issue appellate briefs, with an emphasis on ending with a bang not a whimper, while sticking with the short, non-argumentative conclusion. The argument-ordering discussion is also …

Supreme Court Institute Annual Report, 2020-2021, Georgetown University Law Center, Supreme Court Institute

SCI Papers & Reports

During the U.S. Supreme Court’s October Term (OT) 2020—corresponding to the 2020-2021 academic year— the Supreme Court Institute (SCI) provided moot courts for advocates in 57 of the 58 cases argued at the Supreme Court, offered our annual press and student term preview programs, and continued to integrate the moot court program into the Law Center curriculum. As in past Terms, the varied affiliations of advocates mooted reflect SCI’s commitment to assist advocates without regard to the party represented or the position advanced.

Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of hosting all OT 2020 …

Department Of Homeland Security V. Regents Of The University Of California And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.

The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands …

Some Thoughts On Supplemental Authorities Under Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 28(J) And Related Musings, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay--prompted by my work directing Georgetown Law's Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic--discusses letters filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j). A "Rule 28(j) letter" is the federal appellate rules' principal mechanism for bringing supplemental authorities to an appellate court’s attention after the briefs have been filed. This essay covers (1) the Rule's basic attributes; (2) whether a 28(j) letter may be adversarial; (3) the types of authorities that may be--and should be--cited in a 28(j) letter; (4) proper timing for the filing of a 28(j) letter; (5) when and how to respond to a 28(j) letter; and (6) what …

Confrontation's Multi-Analyst Problem, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment affords the “accused” in “criminal prosecutions” the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against” them. A particular challenge for courts over at least the last decade-plus has been the degree to which the Confrontation Clause applies to forensic reports, such as those presenting the results of a DNA, toxicology, or other CSI-type analysis. Should use of forensic reports entitle criminal defendants to confront purportedly “objective” analysts from the lab producing the report? If so, which analyst or analysts? For forensic processes that require multiple analysts, should the prosecution be required to produce …

Testa, Crain, And The Constitutional Right To Collateral Relief, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state prisoners have a constitutional right to relief from continued imprisonment if the prisoner’s conviction or sentence contravenes a new substantive rule of constitutional law. Specifically, the Court held that prisoners with such claims are constitutionally entitled to collateral relief in state court—at least if the state courts are open to other claims for collateral relief on the ground that their continued imprisonment is unlawful. In our article, The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Relief, we argued that, under two lines of Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Supremacy …

Federal Courts: Art. Iii(1), Art. I(8), Art. Iv(3)(2), Art. Ii(2)/I(8)(3), And Art. Ii(1) Adjudication, Laura K. Donohue, Jeremy M. Mccabe

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The distinction among the several types of federal courts in the United States has gone almost unremarked in the academic literature. Instead, attention focuses on Article III “constitutional” courts with occasional discussion of how they differ from what are referred to as “non-constitutional” or “legislative” courts. At best, these labels are misleading: all federal courts have a constitutional locus, and most, but not all, federal courts are brought into being via legislation. The binary approach further ignores the full range of federal courts, which are rooted in different constitutional provisions: Art. III(1), Art. I(8); Art. IV(3); Art. II(2)/I(8)(3); and Art. …

The Evolution And Jurisprudence Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court And Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Of Review, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The past eight years have witnessed an explosion in the number of publicly-available opinions and orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. From only six opinions in the public domain 1978–2012, by early 2021, eighty-eight opinions had been released. The sharp departure is even more pronounced in relation to orders: from only one order declassified during 1978–2012, since 2013, 288 have been formally released. These documents highlight how the courts’s roles have evolved since 2004 and reveal four key areas that dominate the courts’ jurisprudence: its position as a specialized, Article III …