Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 14 of 14

Full-Text Articles in Law

Reverse Advisory Opinions, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash Sep 2019

Reverse Advisory Opinions, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.


The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg Sep 2019

The Ultimate Independence Of The Federal Courts: Defying The Supreme Court In The Exercise Of Federal Common Law Powers, Ronald H. Rosenberg

Ronald H. Rosenberg

No abstract provided.


An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker Sep 2019

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Katherine Mims Crocker

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …


Against Methodological Stare Decisis, Evan J. Criddle, Glen Staszewski Sep 2019

Against Methodological Stare Decisis, Evan J. Criddle, Glen Staszewski

Evan J. Criddle

Should federal courts give stare decisis effect to statutory interpretation methodology? Although a growing number of legal scholars have answered this question in the affirmative, this Essay makes the case against methodological stare decisis. Drawing on recent empirical studies of Congress’s expectations regarding statutory interpretation, we show that existing knowledge of Congress’s expectations is insufficient to settle on one consistent approach to statutory interpretation. Moreover, Congress has almost certainly changed its expectations over time, and this raises serious problems for methodological stare decisis from the perspective of faithful-agency theories. We argue further that many theories and doctrines of statutory interpretation …


Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin Sep 2019

Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts’ approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence — the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts’ reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the fivefactor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts’ reinterpretation of the framework …


One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Sep 2019

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …


Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Sep 2019

Communicating The Canons: How Lower Courts React When The Supreme Court Changes The Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.


The Federal Courts’ Rulemaking Buffer, Jordan M. Singer May 2019

The Federal Courts’ Rulemaking Buffer, Jordan M. Singer

William & Mary Law Review

Procedural rulemaking is often thought of as a second-order task for the federal court system, relevant to the courts’ work but not essential to their function. In reality, rulemaking plays an integral role in the court system’s operation by actively insulating the courts from environmental pressure. This Article explains how power over procedural rulemaking protects the federal courts from environmental uncertainty and describes the court system’s efforts to maintain the effectiveness of the rulemaking buffer in response to historical and contemporary challenges.


Standing For Nothing, Robert Mikos May 2019

Standing For Nothing, Robert Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A growing number of courts and commentators have suggested that states have Article III standing to protect state law. Proponents of such "protective" standing argue that states must be given access to federal court whenever their laws are threatened. Absent such access, they claim, many state laws might prove toothless, thereby undermining the value of the states in our federal system. Furthermore, proponents insist that this form of special solicitude is very limited-that it opens the doors to the federal courthouses a crack but does not swing them wide open. This Essay, however, contests both of these claims, and thus, …


An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker May 2019

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …


Introduction To Dean Chemerinsky's Article, "The Lower Federal Courts And The War On Terrorism", Rosalie B. Levinson Jan 2019

Introduction To Dean Chemerinsky's Article, "The Lower Federal Courts And The War On Terrorism", Rosalie B. Levinson

Valparaiso University Law Review

No abstract provided.


Emoluments And President Trump, John Mikhail Jan 2019

Emoluments And President Trump, John Mikhail

Valparaiso University Law Review

No abstract provided.


How To Save The Supreme Court, Daniel Epps, Ganesh Sitaraman Jan 2019

How To Save The Supreme Court, Daniel Epps, Ganesh Sitaraman

Scholarship@WashULaw

The consequences of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation are seismic. Justice Kavanaugh, replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, completes a new conservative majority and represents a stunning Republican victory after decades of increasingly partisan battles over control of the Court. The result is a Supreme Court whose Justices are likely to vote along party lines more consistently than ever before in American history. That development gravely threatens the Court’s legitimacy. If in the future roughly half of Americans lack confidence in the Supreme Court’s ability to render impartial justice, the Court’s power to settle important questions of law will be in …


An Unfinished Dialogue: Congress, The Judiciary, And The Rules For Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings, Arthur D. Hellman Jan 2019

An Unfinished Dialogue: Congress, The Judiciary, And The Rules For Federal Judicial Misconduct Proceedings, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

Federal judges can be impeached and removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but what can be done to investigate and remedy less serious misconduct? Congress gave its answer 40 years ago when it passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The Act emerged from a series of complex interactions between Congress and the judiciary that could hardly be replicated today. Initially there was strong support, particularly in the Senate, for a centralized, “strictly adjudicatory” system, including a provision for removal of judges without impeachment. Over the course of several years, however, the judiciary persuaded Congress to …