Law Commons^™

The Irrational Supreme Court, Michael I. Meyerson

ExpressO

Abstract: The Irrational Supreme Court

The pejorative “irrational” is used to describe many defects in legal reasoning, but is generally not meant to be understood as a literal lack of rational thinking. Similarly, the “rational basis test” is not meant to determine whether a legislature is “not endowed with reason or understanding,” but rather if it has acted with some hidden, invidious motive. Incredibly, though, the Supreme Court has frequently issued truly “irrational opinions,” simply due to the fundamental nature of group decision-making.

Much has been written about Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow’s “Impossibility Theorem,” which proved that, when faced …

Book Review: Forensic Linguistics, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

Review of John Gibbons' text "Forensic Linguistics"

Compliance Theory And The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights, Morse Hyun-Myung Tan

ExpressO

This essay fills a gap by exploring compliance theory in international law to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. After introducing the topic and setting the context, it delves into the question of why nations follow international law. Interacting with prominent theoretical models (including the managerial model, fairness and legitimacy, transnational legal process, self-interest, and a comparative perspective with Europe), it arrives at a critical synthesis in the conclusion.

A Third Parallel Primrose Path: The Supreme Court's Repeated, Unexplained, And Still Growing Regulation Of State Courts' Criminal Appeals, Russell M. Coombs

ExpressO

Recently the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Ornelas v. United States, that decisions of certain mixed questions of federal constitutional law and fact, arising under various amendments, must be reviewed de novo on direct appeal. The Court has not specified that state courts are bound by these rulings, but has used conflicting language relevant to that issue. Faced with this ambiguity, the courts of a number of states have departed from their prior practices by following these rulings, at least some because they consider themselves bound to do so, and have extended …

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …

'You'd Better Be Good': Congressional Threats Of Removal Against Federal Judges, Marc O. Degirolami

ExpressO

In the attached article, I argue that congressional threats of removal against federal judges are increasing in prevalence and forcefulness and that as a result the strained relationship between the judiciary and Congress – a topic of recent attention and debate – will continue to deteriorate in the coming years. I examine two bills, the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act and House of Representatives Resolution 568 (in which Congress would disavow citation in judicial decisions to foreign law), to demonstrate this thesis.

I next ask what explains the phenomenon of congressional threats of removal, deploying first Thomas Hobbes’ state-of-nature …

Courts As Forums For Protest, Jules Lobel

ExpressO

For almost half a century, scholars, judges and politicians have debated two competing models of the judiciary’s role in a democratic society. The mainstream model views courts as arbiters of disputes between private individuals asserting particular rights. The public law or structural reform litigation emphasized the judiciary’s role in implementing social change and not simply ordering private relationships.

The ongoing debate between these two views of the judicial role has obscured a third model of the role of courts in a democratic society; a model that has been ignored by legal scholars and viewed as illegitimate by some courts. That …

Beyond Reparations: An American Indian Theory Of Justice, William C. Bradford

ExpressO

The number of states, corporations, and religious groups formally disowning past records of egregious human injustice is mushrooming. Although the Age of Apology is a global phenomenon, the question of reparations—a tort-based mode of redress whereby a wrongdoing group accepts legal responsibility and compensates victims for the damage it inflicted upon them—likely consumes more energy, emotion, and resources in the U.S. than in any other jurisdiction. Since the final year of the Cold War, the U.S. and its political subdivisions have apologized or paid compensation to Japanese-American internees, native Hawaiians, civilians killed in the Korean War, and African American victims …

The Role Of Purposivism In The Delegation Of Rulemaking Authority To The Courts, Michael Rosensaft

ExpressO

The courts are often used by Congress as a “political lightning rod,” when Congress cannot decide how to resolve an issue. Congress relies on administrative agencies for their expertise, and it also makes sense for Congress to delegate some rulemaking authority to the courts, relying on a court’s expertise in developing caselaw in an incremental basis. However, this authority should not be lightly implied. A court can tell that Congress has delegated rulemaking authority to it when the purpose of the statute is clear and the text is broadly worded. It thus makes sense in these cases that purposivism should …

Beyond Rights: Legal Process And Ethnic Conflicts, Elena A. Baylis

ExpressO

Unresolved ethnic conflicts threaten the stability and the very existence of multi-ethnic states. The realities of ethnic conflict are daunting: ethnic disputes tend to be both persistent and complex, and efforts to use democracy or ethnic-blind policies to deal with those conflicts tend to fail. While multi-ethnic states have struggled to devise political solutions for ethnic conflict, they have largely ignored the role that legal processes might play in resolving ethnic discord. But at certain crucial moments in the development of ethnic conflicts, legal processes such as mediation, adjudication, and constitutional interpretation might effectively address these disputes.

This article explores …

Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman

Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers

In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …

Trial Of The Accused Taliban And Al Qaeda Operatives Captured In Afghanistan And Detained On A U.S. Military Base In Cuba, Jaime Jackson

ExpressO

A timely piece proposing solutions for issues certain to be raised in the upcoming trials of the accused Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives captured in Afghanistan and detained on a U.S. military base in Cuba. In the article, I begin by examining the history and jurisdiction of Article I and Article III courts and then address the history and structure of the Al Qaeda and Taliban regimes. After considering the Constitution, federal statutes, politics, and geographical limitations, I conclude that Al Qaeda detainees should be tried in Article III courts under terrorism statutes and Taliban detainees, as military combatants, should …