Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (206)
- Constitutional Law (96)
- Civil Procedure (65)
- Judges (60)
- Jurisdiction (56)
-
- Litigation (46)
- Supreme Court of the United States (41)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (27)
- Jurisprudence (26)
- State and Local Government Law (26)
- Legal History (22)
- Legislation (22)
- Administrative Law (19)
- Criminal Procedure (16)
- International Law (15)
- President/Executive Department (14)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (14)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (13)
- Legal Remedies (13)
- Criminal Law (12)
- Evidence (12)
- Law and Politics (12)
- Law and Society (12)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (9)
- Securities Law (8)
- Torts (8)
- Common Law (7)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (7)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (7)
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (48)
- University of Colorado Law School (30)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (18)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (13)
- Cornell University Law School (12)
-
- Georgetown University Law Center (12)
- Notre Dame Law School (12)
- University of Richmond (12)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (12)
- New York Law School (10)
- University of Georgia School of Law (10)
- University of Missouri School of Law (10)
- American University Washington College of Law (9)
- Boston University School of Law (9)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (8)
- William & Mary Law School (8)
- Fordham Law School (7)
- St. Mary's University (7)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (7)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (6)
- Florida State University College of Law (5)
- University of Kentucky (5)
- Emory University School of Law (4)
- University of Baltimore Law (4)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (4)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (4)
- Western New England University School of Law (4)
- George Washington University Law School (3)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (3)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (49)
- Faculty Scholarship (31)
- Publications (28)
- Faculty Publications (19)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (18)
-
- Law Faculty Publications (16)
- All Faculty Scholarship (15)
- Journal Articles (14)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (13)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (12)
- Scholarly Works (12)
- Faculty Articles (11)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (10)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (9)
- Faculty Works (7)
- Scholarly Articles (6)
- Supreme Court Case Files (6)
- Scholarly Publications (5)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (4)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (4)
- Other Publications (4)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (4)
- Articles & Chapters (3)
- GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works (3)
- Popular Media (3)
- Bar Associations (2)
- College of Law Faculty (2)
- Law & Economics Working Papers (2)
- Reviews (2)
- All Faculty Publications (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 338
Full-Text Articles in Law
Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
“[T]he legislative, executive, and judicial powers, of every well-constructed government, are co-extensive with each other . . . [T]he judicial department may receive from the Legislature the power of construing any . . . law [which the Legislature may constitutionally make].” Chief Justice Marshall relied on this axiom in Osborn v. Bank of the United States to stress the breadth of the federal judicial power: The federal courts must have the potential power to adjudicate any claim based on any law Congress has the power to enact. In recent years, however, the axiom has sometimes operated in the opposite direction: …
Fee Shifting, Nominal Damages, And The Public Interest, Maureen Carroll
Fee Shifting, Nominal Damages, And The Public Interest, Maureen Carroll
Law & Economics Working Papers
As the Supreme Court recognized in its 2021 decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, nominal damages can redress violations of “important, but not easily quantifiable, nonpecuniary rights.” For some plaintiffs who establish a violation of their constitutional rights, nominal damages will be the only relief available. In its 1992 decision in Farrar v. Hobby, however, the Court disparaged the nominal-damages remedy. The case involved the interpretation of federal fee-shifting statutes, which enable prevailing civil rights plaintiffs to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from the defendant. According to Farrar, a plaintiff can prevail by obtaining the “technical” remedy of nominal damages, but …
Aals Federal Courts Section Newsletter, Katherine Mims Crocker, Celestine Richards Mcconville
Aals Federal Courts Section Newsletter, Katherine Mims Crocker, Celestine Richards Mcconville
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Let The Right Ones In: The Supreme Court's Changing Approach To Justiciability, Richard L. Heppner
Let The Right Ones In: The Supreme Court's Changing Approach To Justiciability, Richard L. Heppner
Law Faculty Publications
The power of federal courts to act is circumscribed not only by the limits of subject matter jurisdiction, but also by various justiciability doctrines. Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress creates. That power is limited to deciding cases and controversies. It does not permit federal courts to provide advisory opinions when there is not a real dispute between the parties. Based on that constitutional limit, and related prudential concerns, the Court has developed a variety of justiciability requirements limiting which cases can be …
Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee, Evan J. Criddle
Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee, Evan J. Criddle
Briefs
No abstract provided.
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
The Constitution As A Source Of Remedial Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Equity’s Constitutional Source, Owen W. Gallogly argues that Article III is the source of a constitutional default rule for equitable remedies—specifically, that Article III’s vesting of the “judicial Power” “in Equity” empowers federal courts to afford the remedies traditionally afforded by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Founding, and to develop such remedies in an incremental fashion. This Response questions the current plausibility of locating such a default rule in Article III, since remedies having their source in Article III would be available in federal but not state courts and would apply to state-law …
Thoughts On Law Clerk Diversity And Influence, Todd C. Peppers
Thoughts On Law Clerk Diversity And Influence, Todd C. Peppers
Scholarly Articles
It is my great good fortune to have been asked to comment on the remarkable Article Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights from Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals by Judge Jeremy D. Fogel, Professor Mary S. Hoopes, and Justice Goodwin Liu. Drawing on a rich vein of data gathered pursuant to a carefully crafted research design and extensive interviews, the authors provide the most detailed account to date regarding the selection criteria used by federal appeals court judges to select their law clerks. The authors pay special attention to the role that diversity plays in picking …
Macro-Judging And Article Iii Exceptionalism, Merritt E. Mcalister
Macro-Judging And Article Iii Exceptionalism, Merritt E. Mcalister
UF Law Faculty Publications
Over the last half-century, the federal courts have faced down two competing crises: an increase in small, low-value litigation thought unworthy of Article III attention and an increase in the numbers and complexity of “big” cases thought worthy of those resources. The choice was what to prioritize and how, and the answer the courts gave was consistent across all levels of the federal judiciary. Using what this Article calls “macro-judging,” Article III judges entrenched their own power and autonomy to focus on the work they deemed most “worthy” of their attention, while outsourcing less “important” work to an array of …
The Shape Of Citizenship: Extraordinary Common Meaning And Constitutional Legitimacy, David N. Mcneill, Emily Tucker
The Shape Of Citizenship: Extraordinary Common Meaning And Constitutional Legitimacy, David N. Mcneill, Emily Tucker
CPT Papers & Reports
The United States, it is widely believed, is at a moment of constitutional crisis. At no time since the Civil War era has it seemed more likely that what James Madison called the “experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people”—the experiment in democratic constitutional self-governance—will fail. This article argues that one reason for this state of affairs is that the ‘people’ sense that they are no longer active participants in the experiment. While the historical etiology of this crisis is complex, and the forces involved not confined to the US, this article focuses on the crisis in the …
Religious Convictions, Anna Offit
Religious Convictions, Anna Offit
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
The Anglo-American jury emerged at a time when legal and religious conceptions of justice were entwined. Today, however, though the American public remains comparatively religious, the country’s legal system draws a distinction between legal and religious modes of determining culpability and passing judgment. This Article examines the doctrine that governs the place of religious belief and practice in U.S. jury selection proceedings. It argues that the discretion afforded to judges with respect to applying the Batson antidiscrimination doctrine has given these beliefs and practices an ambiguous status. On the one hand, judges aim to protect prospective religious jurors from discrimination. …
Bottom-Rung Appeals, Merritt E. Mcalister
Bottom-Rung Appeals, Merritt E. Mcalister
UF Law Faculty Publications
There are haves and have-nots in the federal appellate courts, and the haves get more attention. For decades the courts have used a triage regime where they distribute judicial attention selectively: some appeals receive a lot of judicial attention, some appeals receive barely any. What this work unearths is that this triage system produces demonstrably unequal results depending on the circuit handling the appeal and whether the appellant has counsel or not. Together, these two factors produce dramatic disparities: in one circuit, for example, an unrepresented appellant receives, on average, a decision less than a tenth the length of a …
The Mystery Of The Leavenworth Oaths, M H. Hoeflich, Stephen M. Sheppard
The Mystery Of The Leavenworth Oaths, M H. Hoeflich, Stephen M. Sheppard
Faculty Articles
Lawyers have sworn an oath to be admitted to the Bar since the beginnings of the Anglo-American legal profession. The oath serves several extremely important purposes. First, it is the formal act that admits an individual into the Bar and confers upon the oath taker the right to perform the duties of an attorney in the jurisdiction in which the oath is given. Second, the oath admits the new attorney to the broader world of the legal profession and signifies that the new attorney has been judged by the oath giver as worthy of the right to practice law. Third, …
How Biden Can Continue Making The Federal Courts Better, Carl Tobias
How Biden Can Continue Making The Federal Courts Better, Carl Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
From 2017 until 2020, former President Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority nominated and confirmed record-breaking numbers of appellate court judges. This emphasis undermined ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, and experiential diversity as well as ideological balance on these courts and neglected to address persistent district court and emergency vacancies. Moreover, to achieve these historic confirmation levels, the GOP Senate majority eviscerated or altered certain rules and customs of regular order, which included the creation of a circuit-level exception to the blue slip process. President Joe Biden, in turn, has pledged to rectify the damage to the courts and the …
There Is No Such Thing As Circuit Law, Thomas B. Bennett
There Is No Such Thing As Circuit Law, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Lawyers and judges often talk about “the law of the circuit,” meaning the set of legal rules that apply within a particular federal judicial circuit. Seasoned practitioners are steeped in circuit law, it is said. Some courts have imagined that they confront a choice between applying the law of one circuit or another. In its strong form, this idea of circuit law implies that each circuit creates and interprets its own body of substantive law that is uniquely applicable to disputes that arise within the circuit’s borders.
This article argues that the notion of circuit law is nonsensical and undesirable …
Interpreting State Statutes In Federal Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Interpreting State Statutes In Federal Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article addresses a problem that potentially arises whenever a federal court encounters a state statute. When interpreting the state statute, should the federal court use the state’s methods of statutory interpretation—the state’s canons of construction, its rules about the use of legislative history, and the like—or should the court instead use federal methods of statutory interpretation? The question is interesting as a matter of theory, and it is practically significant because different jurisdictions have somewhat different interpretive approaches. In addressing itself to this problem, the Article makes two contributions. First, it shows, as a normative matter, that federal courts …
Bottom-Rung Appeals, Merritt E. Mcalister
Bottom-Rung Appeals, Merritt E. Mcalister
UF Law Faculty Publications
There are haves and have-nots in the federal appellate courts, and the haves get more attention. For decades the courts have used a triage regime where they distribute judicial attention selectively: some appeals receive a lot of judicial attention, some appeals receive barely any. What this work unearths is that this triage system produces demonstrably unequal results depending on the circuit handling the appeal and whether the appellant has counsel or not. Together, these two factors produce dramatic disparities: in one circuit, for example, an unrepresented appellant receives, on average, a decision less than a tenth the length of a …
Macro-Judging And Article Iii Exceptionalism, Merritt E. Mcalister
Macro-Judging And Article Iii Exceptionalism, Merritt E. Mcalister
UF Law Faculty Publications
Over the last half-century, the federal courts have faced down two competing crises: an increase in small, low-value litigation thought unworthy of Article III attention and an increase in the numbers and complexity of “big” cases thought worthy of those resources. The choice was what to prioritize and how, and the answer the courts gave was consistent across all levels of the federal judiciary. Using what this Article calls “macro-judging,” Article III judges entrenched their own power and autonomy to focus on the work they deemed most “worthy” of their attention, while outsourcing less “important” work to an array of …
Aals Federal Courts Section Newsletter, Katherine Mims Crocker, Celestine Mcconville
Aals Federal Courts Section Newsletter, Katherine Mims Crocker, Celestine Mcconville
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Living Rules Of Evidence, G. Alexander Nunn
The Living Rules Of Evidence, G. Alexander Nunn
Faculty Scholarship
The jurisprudential evolution of evidence law is dead. At least, that’s what we’re expected to believe. Ushered in on the wings of a growing positivist movement, the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence purported to quell judicial authority over evidence law. Instead, committees, conferences, and members of Congress would regulate any change to our evidentiary regime, thereby capturing the evolution of evidence law in a single, transparent code.
The codification of evidence law, though, has proven problematic. The arrival of the Federal Rules of Evidence has given rise to a historically anomalous era of relative stagnation in the doctrinal …
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
Rebuilding The Federal Circuit Courts, Merritt E. Mcalister
UF Law Faculty Publications
The conversation about Supreme Court reform—as important as it is—has obscured another, equally important conversation: the need for lower federal court reform. The U.S. Courts of Appeals have not seen their ranks grow in over three decades. Even then, those additions were stopgap measures built on an appellate triage system that had outsourced much of its work to nonjudicial decision-makers (central judicial staff and law clerks). Those changes born of necessity have now become core features of the federal appellate system, which distributes judicial resources—including oral argument and judicial scrutiny—to a select few. This Article begins to reimagine the courts …
Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The Roberts Court, in marked contrast to its predecessor, has embraced the role of the federal judiciary in resolving clashes between coordinate branches, but it has done so without adequately grappling with Rehnquist-era justiciability hurdles. Constrained by Raines v. Byrd, the 1997 case in which Chief Justice Rehnquist purported in broad strokes to shut down institutional standing, the Roberts Court has relied primarily on individual litigants to raise separation-of-powers claims as defenses in enforcement proceedings. Primary reliance on individual litigants is problematic. First, it is difficult to square with conventional conceptions of injury in fact. Individual litigants have traditionally …
A Tale Of Two Civil Procedures, Pamela K. Bookman, Colleen F. Shanahan
A Tale Of Two Civil Procedures, Pamela K. Bookman, Colleen F. Shanahan
Faculty Scholarship
In the United States, there are two kinds of courts: federal and state. Civil procedure classes and scholarship tend to focus on the federal, but refer to and make certain assumptions about state courts. While this dichotomy makes sense when discussing some issues, like federal subject matter jurisdiction, for many aspects of procedure this breakdown can be misleading. When understanding American civil justice, two different categories of courts are just as salient: those that routinely include lawyers, and those where lawyers are fundamentally absent.
This essay urges civil procedure teachers and scholars to think about our courts as “lawyered” courts—which …
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
State Rejection Of Federal Law, Thomas B. Bennett
Faculty Publications
Sometimes the United States Supreme Court speaks, and states do not follow. For example, in 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed to "reject" a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, because no "sound reasons justif[ied] following" it. Similarly, in 2006, Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative that, according to the legislature that drafted it, sought "at the very least to freeze' the state's ... law to prevent" state courts from following a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Surprising though this language may be, there is nothing nefarious about these cases. Cooper v. Aaron this is not. Unlike more notorious …
Mapping The Civil Justice Gap In Federal Court, Roger Michalski, Andrew Hammond
Mapping The Civil Justice Gap In Federal Court, Roger Michalski, Andrew Hammond
UF Law Faculty Publications
Unrepresented litigants make up a sizable and normatively important chunk of civil litigation in the federal courts. Despite their importance, we still know little about who these pro se litigants are. Debates about pro se litigation take place without sufficient empirical information. To help fill some of the gaps in our understanding of pro se litigants, this Article takes a new approach by mapping where pro se litigants live.
Using a massive data set of 2.5 million federal dockets from a ten-year period, we obtained addresses of non-prisoner pro se litigants. We then geolocated these addresses and cross-referenced that information …
How Chevron Deference Fits Into Article Iii, Kent H. Barnett
How Chevron Deference Fits Into Article Iii, Kent H. Barnett
Scholarly Works
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, along with Professor Philip Hamburger, assert that Chevron deference-under which courts defer to reasonable agency statutory interpretations-violates Article III. Chevron does so because, they argue, it either permits agencies, not courts, "to say what the law is" or requires judges to forgo independent judgment by favoring the government's position. If they are correct, Congress could not require courts to accept reasonable agency statutory interpretations under any circumstances. This Article does what these critics, perhaps surprisingly, do not do-situates challenges to Chevron within the broad landscape of the Court's current Article III …
A Prelude To A Critical Race Perspective On Civil Procedure, Portia Pedro
A Prelude To A Critical Race Perspective On Civil Procedure, Portia Pedro
Faculty Scholarship
In this Essay, I examine the lack of scholarly attention given to the role of civil procedure in racial subordination. I posit that a dearth of critical thought interrogating the connections between procedure and the subjugation of marginalized peoples might be due to the limited experiences of procedural scholars; a misconception that procedural rules are a technical, objective, neutral area; and avoidance of discussion of race or other aspects of identity unless there is a case, material, or scholarly topic that meets an unreasonably high standard. I emphasize the importance of a critical race analysis of civil procedure.
The Aoc In The Age Of Covid - Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel
The Aoc In The Age Of Covid - Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel
Faculty Articles
The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis for American society—and the federal courts were not exempt. Court facilities came to a grinding halt, cases were postponed, and judiciary employees adopted work-from-home practices. Having court operations impacted by a pandemic was not a new phenomenon, but the size, scope, and technological lift of the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly unique.
Against this background, this Article examines the history and future of pandemic preparedness planning in the federal court system and seeks to capture some of the lessons learned from initial federal court transitions to pandemic operations in 2020. The Article begins by …
Lech's Mess With The Tenth Circuit: Why Governmental Entities Are Not Exempt From Paying Just Compensation When They Destroy Property Pursuant To Their Police Powers, Emilio R. Longoria
Lech's Mess With The Tenth Circuit: Why Governmental Entities Are Not Exempt From Paying Just Compensation When They Destroy Property Pursuant To Their Police Powers, Emilio R. Longoria
Faculty Articles
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Lech v. Jackson, a Tenth Circuit inverse condemnation case, which held that governmental entities are categorically exempt from paying just compensation when they destroy private property pursuant to their police powers. This denial of certiorari cements a highly controversial circuit court holding into our takings jurisprudence the effects of which will be serious and far reaching. This article dissects the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Lech and explains how and why this holding should be revisited. If it is not, we risk losing the protection that the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation …
Advisory Opinions And The Problem Of Legal Authority, Christian R. Burset
Advisory Opinions And The Problem Of Legal Authority, Christian R. Burset
Journal Articles
The prohibition against advisory opinions is fundamental to our understanding of federal judicial power, but we’ve misunderstood its origins. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with a constitutional text or even a court case, but a letter in which the Jay Court rejected President Washington’s request for legal advice. Courts and scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the Jay Court’s behavior. But they all depict the earliest Justices as responding to uniquely American concerns about advisory opinions.
This Article offers a different explanation. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the anglophone world—not only …
The Strange Career Of The Three-Judge District Court: Federalism And Civil Rights, 1954-76, Michael E. Solimine
The Strange Career Of The Three-Judge District Court: Federalism And Civil Rights, 1954-76, Michael E. Solimine
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
The three-judge district court has had a long and strange career in the history of the federal court system. Congress created the court in 1910 as a response to the canonical decision of Ex parte Young two years earlier, which permitted federal court suits against state officials to facilitate constitutional challenges to state laws. The three-judge court statute was a reaction by Progressive Era politicians to such perceived judicial overreach, and required any such challenges to be brought before a specially convened trial court of three judges, with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court available. First established as a …