Law Commons^™

Courts, Culture, And The Lethal Injection Stalemate, Eric Berger

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Bucklew v. Precythe reiterated the Court’s great deference to states in Eighth Amendment lethal injection cases. The takeaway is that when it comes to execution protocols, states can do what they want. Events on the ground tell a very different story. Notwithstanding courts’ deference, executions have ground to a halt in numerous states, often due to lethal injection problems. State officials and the Court’s conservative Justices have blamed this development on “anti-death penalty activists” waging “guerilla war” on capital punishment. In reality, though, a variety of mostly uncoordinated actors motivated by a range of …

Looking Beyond Batson: A Different Method Of Combating Bias Against Queer Jurors, Anna L. Tayman

William & Mary Law Review

On November 27, 1978, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in California’s history, was murdered. He was shot five times, twice in the head. His murderer, Dan White, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served only five years in prison.

The Dan White trial is the most famous example of queer juror exclusion in American history. While White’s defense attorney, Douglas Schmidt, could not directly ask the jurors about their sexual orientation, he had another strategy: find the gays and allies and keep them out, and find the Catholics and keep them in. Schmidt struck a woman who …

The Court Should Not Let Politically Divided Times Affects Its Choices And Decisions, Erwin Chemerinsky

William & Mary Law Review

The Court should not let politically divided times affect its choices or decisions. Altering the Court’s role in politically divided times would require a definition of what qualifies as such an era and a theory of how to act in such times. Almost every era in American history could be deemed a politically divided time. Changing the Court’s role in politically divided times is inconsistent with its preeminent role: interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. This role does not change, and should not change, in politically charged moments. Indeed, history shows that the Court cannot know what is likely to lessen …

Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang

William & Mary Law Review

Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …

Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea

William & Mary Law Review

President Trump’s daily tweets attacking the media have led many observers to express concern about the state of the press in our nation. Trump has called the press “the ... enemy of the [American] people,” encouraged a climate of hatred toward journalists at his rallies, refused to condemn Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and accused the media of writing “fake news.” The public’s trust in the institutional press has simultaneously diminished. Combined with the continuing economic challenges journalists face, the press is certainly facing some difficult times.

Nevertheless, things are not as dire as they …

The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman

William & Mary Law Review

The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …

Judging "Under Fire" And The Retreat To Facts, Allison Orr Larsen

William & Mary Law Review

Americans tend to worry about how our current polarized political climate will affect the legitimacy of our courts. Often overlooked in this important conversation is a discussion about what a toxic political dialogue can do—and in fact is doing—to the construction of the law itself. This Article will begin to make the case that judicial decisions themselves change as a result of high-intensity politics. Specifically, I will argue that when judges are “under fire” (to borrow a phrase from Planned Parenthood v. Casey), they tend to cloak their decisions in factual observations about the world that seem neutral and objective, …

Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy

William & Mary Law Review

When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …

Summary Dispositions As Precedent, Richard C. Chen

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s practice of summarily reversing decisions based on certiorari filings, without the benefit of merits briefing or oral argument, has recently come under increasing scrutiny. The practice is difficult to square with the Court’s stated criteria for granting certiorari and its norms against reviewing fact-bound cases to engage in mere error correction. Nonetheless, there is growing acceptance that the practice is likely to continue in some form, and the conversation has shifted to asking when the use of summary dispositions should be considered proper. Commentators have had no trouble identifying the Court’s tendencies: summary dispositions are most commonly …