Law Commons^™

The Legacy Of Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013): A Legal Theory And Methodology For Hedgehogs, Hercules, And One Right Answers, Imer Flores

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this paper the author addresses Ronald Dworkin’s work and assesses his legacy to legal, moral and political philosophy. And so, considers among its merits having developed an original legal theory with its distinctive methodology, which not only has transcended the Natural Law and Legal Positivism dichotomy, but also has reintegrated law into a branch of political morality and defended as a corollary the one right answer thesis. Hence, commences by identifying the dworkininan challenge; continues by introducing some basic definitions and distinctions between jurisprudence, legal philosophy (or philosophy of law) and legal theory (or theory of law), on the …

The Conservative-Libertarian Turn In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

Conservative constitutional jurisprudence in the United States has an important libertarian dimension. In recent years, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court has strengthened the constitutional protections for property rights, recognized an individual right to own firearms, imposed limits on the welfare state and the powers of the federal government, cut back on affirmative action, and held that closely held corporations have a right to religious liberty that permits them to deny contraceptive coverage to their female employees. This libertarian streak also can be seen in decisions on freedom of speech and association. In several leading cases, conservative judges have …

Interest Groups In The Teaching Of Legal History, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

One reason legal history is more interesting than it was several decades ago is the increased role of interest groups in our accounts of legal change. Diverse movements including law and society, critical legal theory, comparative law, and public choice theory have promoted this development, even among writers who are not predominantly historians. Nonetheless, in my own survey course in American legal history I often push back. Taken too far, interest group theorizing becomes an easy shortcut for assessing legal movements and developments without fully understanding the ideas behind them.

Intellectual history in the United States went into decline because …

When Things Went Terribly, Terribly Wrong Part Ii, Steven L. Winter

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The Scope Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales and elaborate doctrinal frameworks articulated by their predecessors. This practice infuses judicial precedent with the prescriptive power of enacted constitutional and statutory text. The lower federal courts follow suit, regularly abiding by the Supreme Court's broad pronouncements. These phenomena cannot be explained by—and, indeed, oftentimes subvert—the classic distinction between binding holdings and dispensable dicta.

This Article connects the scope of precedent with recurring and foundational debates about the proper ends of judicial interpretation. A precedent's forward-looking effect should not depend on the superficial …

Upending A Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis Of The U.S. Supreme Court’S Use Of Transnational Law To Interpret Domestic Doctrine,, Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E. Walters, Jennifer L. Brookhart

Faculty Scholarship

Over the last ten years, judges, scholars, and policymakers have argued — quite vehemently at times — about whether U.S. courts should use transnational sources of law to interpret domestic legal doctrine. All eyes in this debate focus on the U.S. Supreme Court and its use, misuse, and alleged use of transnational law. And almost all the debates are normative. Some scholars and judges argue the Court is correct to use transnational law. Others believe to do so is constitutional apostacy. Still, the controversy seems to have generated more heat than light. Among the clamor can be found little empirical …

A Judicial Cure For The Disease Of Overcriminalization, Stephen F. Smith

Journal Articles

The dangers of “overcriminalization” are widely appreciated across the political spectrum, but confusion remains as to its cause. Standard critiques fault legislatures alone. The problem, however, is not simply that too many criminal laws are on the books, but that they are poorly defined in ways that give unwarranted sweep to the criminal law, raising the danger of punishment absent or in excess of moral blameworthiness. Instead of narrowing ambiguous criminal laws to more appropriate bounds, courts frequently expand them, even when this ratchets up the punishment that offenders face, and fail to insist on proof of sufficiently culpable states …

Is Resistance To Foreign Law Rooted In Racism?, Sheldon Bernard Lyke

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Graphic Labels, Dire Warnings And The Facile Assumption Of Factual Content In Compelled Commercial Speech, Nat Stern

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Gully And The Failure To Stake A 28 U.S.C. § 1331 'Claim', Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this piece, I argue that a return to Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian as an approach to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is ill-conceived. In a recent thoughtful article, Professor Simona Grossi draws heavily upon the traditions of the legal process school’s approach to federal courts jurisprudence to support just such a resurrection of Gully as the lodestar for § 1331 doctrine. While embracing a return to the legal process school, I argue first that the Gully view — read as a call for judges simply to select sufficiently important matters, in relation to plaintiff’s case in …

Abortion And The Constitutional Right (Not) To Procreate, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

With the growing use of assisted reproductive technology (“ART”), courts have to reconcile competing rights to seek and avoid procreation. Often, in imagining the boundaries of these rights, judges turn to abortion jurisprudence for guidance.

This move sparks controversy. On the one hand, abortion case law may provide the strongest constitutional foundation for scholars and advocates seeking rights to access ART or avoid un-wanted parenthood. On the other hand, abortion jurisprudence carries normative and political baggage: a privacy framework that disadvantages poor women and a history of intense polarization.

This article uses the legal history of struggle over spousal consent …

Procedural Due Process In Modern Problem-Solving Courts: An Application Of The Asymmetric Immune Knowledge Hypothesis, Leah C. Georges

Department of Psychology: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Research

Problem-solving courts, such as drug and mental health courts, function under the model of therapeutic jurisprudence—the idea that legal policies and procedures should help and not harm clients, within the confines of the law (Winick & Wexler, 2002). Although it would seem that the lack of procedural due process in most problem-solving courts is in direct opposition to the best interests of a client, it is possible that observers find this more of a problem than do the court clients themselves. This two-experiment study applied Igou’s (2008) AIK hypothesis to problem-solving courts’ practice of sanctioning in the absence of due …

Natural Law And Legal Positivism In The Nuremberg Trials, Judah B. Murray

Senior Honors Theses

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how a natural law based jurisprudential philosophy would have proved superior to the Austinian legal positivist prepositions that the Allies worked from in the Nuremberg Trials. This is achieved through defining natural law as it was classically understood by its historical advocates such as Thomas Aquinas and Sir William Blackstone. Natural law’s applicability to the Trials builds off the principles articulated by those writers. In the process of making this determination, as to why natural law represents a viable jurisprudential idea, this paper addresses the fundamental conflict between natural law and …

Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

All Faculty Scholarship

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become a …

Analogical Legal Reasoning: Theory And Evidence, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.

Asymmetric Empirical Similarity, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.

The Puzzling Presumption Of Reviewability, Nicholas Bagley

Articles

The presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action is a cornerstone of administrative law, accepted by courts and commentators alike as both legally appropriate and obviously desirable. Yet the presumption is puzzling. As with any canon of statutory construction that serves a substantive end, it should find a source in history, positive law, the Constitution, or sound policy considerations. None of these, however, offers a plausible justification for the presumption. As for history, the sort of judicial review that the presumption favors - appellate-style arbitrariness review - was not only unheard of prior to the twentieth century, but …

The Means Principle, Larry Alexander

Faculty Scholarship

Michael Moore believes there are deontological constraints on actors’ pursuit of good consequences. He believes these constraints are best conceived of as agent-relative prohibitions such as “you must not intentionally kill, batter, rape, steal, etc.” I, joined in recent years by Kimberly Ferzan, believe that the best interpretation of deontological constraints — the interpretation that best accounts for our intuitions about certain stock cases — is that they are constraints on the causal means by which good consequences may be achieved. We believe those constraints can be unified under a single deontological principle, what we call the “means principle.” It …

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Barbara A. Babb, David B. Wexler

All Faculty Scholarship

Therapeutic jurisprudence, developed in the late 1980s, is a field of inquiry. It is a lens through which to examine the effects of substantive laws, legal rules, Iegal procedures, and the behavior of legal actors, including judges, lawyers, court personnel, and service providers, on the psychological and emotional well·being of justice system participants, including the Iegal actors themselves. Therapeutic Jurisprudence is a perspective or framework, and its use suggests the need to conduct empirical research to determine whether outcomes resulting from the application of substantive laws, legal rules, and legal procedures and from the behavior of legal actors have therapeutic …

Book Review: American Jericho: A Book Review Of The Hanging Judge By Michael A. Ponsor, Giovanna Shay

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Construction Vs. Development: Polarizing Models Of Human Gestation, Richard Stith

Law Faculty Publications

This essay argues that the polarization of our public debate over embryo-destructive research may be due, to a large extent, not to different valuations of individual human life but to different conceptions of the process of gestation, with one group treating the process as a making or construction and the other treating it as a development. These two incompatible models of reproduction are shown to explain the various positions commonly encountered in this debate over the treatment of embryos, and to a significant degree those encountered in the debate over abortion as well. Finally, the historical, theoretical, and intuitive strengths …

Retroactivity And Prospectivity Of Judgments In American Law, Richard Kay

Faculty Articles and Papers

In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect — that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that such application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This essay, a substantially abridged version of the United States Report on the subject, submitted at the Nineteenth International Congress of Comparative Law, summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing …

Statutes And Democratic Self-Authorship, Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Paul W. Kahn

Faculty Articles and Papers

In this Article, we argue that both sides of the usual debate over statutory interpretation-text versus purpose-rest on a common, but flawed, premise. Judges and scholars have assumed that legislative bodies are the authors of statutes. We disagree; instead, we argue that the people are the authors of statutes. Legislative bodies play an indispensable role in the process: they draft statutes. And courts play a similarly indispensable role: they interpret statutes. But ultimately, it is the polity-we, the people-that is responsible, as authors, for the content of the law.

This shift yields dramatic consequences. To date, no theory of statutory …

Through Our Glass Darkly: Does Comparative Law Counsel The Use Of Foreign Law In U.S. Constitutional Adjudication?, Kenneth Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This (35 pp.) essay appears as a contribution to a law review symposium on the work of Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon in comparative law. The essay begins by asking what comparative law as a scholarly discipline might suggest about the use of foreign (or unratified or nationally "unaccepted" international law) by US courts in US constitutional adjudication. The trend seemed to be gathering steam in US courts between the early-1990s and mid-2000s, but by the late-2000s, it appeared to be stalled as a practice, notwithstanding the intense scholarly interest throughout this period.

Practical politics within the US …

The Surprising Acquittals In The Gotovina And Perisic Cases: Is The Icty Appeals Chamber A Trial Chamber Is Sheep's Clothing, Mark A. Summers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reading Blackstone In The Twenty-First Century And The Twenty-First Century Through Blackstone, Jessie Allen

Book Chapters

If the Supreme Court mythologizes Blackstone, it is equally true that Blackstone himself was engaged in something of a mythmaking project. Far from a neutral reporter, Blackstone has some stories to tell, in particular the story of the hero law. The problems associated with using the Commentaries as a transparent window on eighteenth-century American legal norms, however, do not make Blackstone’s text irrelevant today. The chapter concludes with my brief reading of the Commentaries as a critical mirror of some twenty-first-century legal and social structures. That analysis draws on a long-term project, in which I am making my way through …

Urban Decay, Austerity, And The Rule Of Law, Brent T. White

Publications

Detroit has failed and its infrastructure is crumbling. But Detroit is not an isolated case. It is a paradigmatic example of increasing urban decay across the United States. While commentators have warned that the declining state of the country's infrastructure threatens U.S. prosperity, there is a bigger issue at stake. Decaying urban environments jeopardize the rule of law, undermining the very foundation of the social contract. This Article shows that the strength of the rule of law in a given country can be predicted by that government's ability (or inability) to provide public services-particularly, a livable urban environment. When urban …

Procedural Due Process: The Distinctions Between America And Abroad, Ronald Smith

Faculty Scholarship

This paper was written in an effort to highlight the guarantees of procedural due process that America provides to its own citizens, as well as those that are of international citizenship. In so doing, American Due Process Jurisprudence is compared to the minimum standards that the United Nations stipulates via the United Declaration on Human Rights. Also included is an accounting of actual due process deprivations that have been inflicted upon persons that should have been entitled to nothing less than the utmost of legal protections whilst visiting a country, and although the arresting country promised to abide by the …

What Is The Rule Of Law And Why Is It So Important?, Mortimer N.S. Sellers

Book Chapters

This chapter considers the rule of law from within the rule of law tradition, to clarify what the rule of law is, why it is so valuable, and how we can secure it.

Judge Posner, Judge Wilkinson, And Judicial Critique Of Constitutional Theory, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Judge Richard Posner's well-known view is that constitutional theory is useless. And Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III has lambasted constitutional theory for the way in which its "cosmic" aspirations threaten democratic self-governance. Many other judges hold similar views. And yet both Posner and Wilkinson-in the popular press, in law review articles, and in books-have advocated what appear to be their own theories of how to judge in constitutional cases. Judicial pragmatism for Posner and judicial restraint for Wilkinson seem to be substitutes for originalism, living constitutionalism, political process theory, and so on. But both Posner and Wilkinson also deny that …