Courts Commons^™

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

Doubting Thomas And Questioning Stare Decisis Under The Roberts Court, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii

Articles

The article critically examines the erosion of stare decisis under the Roberts Court, highlighting concerns about the Supreme Court's increasing willingness to overturn established precedents. While acknowledging the importance of stare decisis in maintaining stability and equality, the author argues that its practical value is being undermined by ideological polarization and a departure from traditional legal reasoning. The article questions the Court's recent approach to precedent, particularly in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and critiques the conservative majority's aggressive use of judicial power.

Intuitions In Tort Law And Theory, James A. Macleod

Articles

This Essay highlights the many ways that ordinary conceptual and moral intuitions shape the development of tort law. It further argues that, for a range of doctrinal and institutional reasons, such intuitions deserve a central place in tort theorists’ efforts to explain, predict, justify, and reform the law of torts. Finally, given the stakes for both positive and normative tort theory, the Essay emphasizes the need for more systematic empirical research into the content and operation of people’s tort-relevant intuitions.

Ghost Guns: A Case Study On The Tension Between Public Exigencies And Statutory Construction, Bradley Krause

Catholic University Law Review

Administrative agencies often navigate public policy issues while simultaneously handling complex and highly technical matters. When facing a public emergency, how should courts interpret these agencies’ authorizing statutes? What rules of thumb exist to guide the courts? This Comment answers these questions through a case study on ongoing litigation pertaining to a recent ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) regulation. The regulation, targeted towards ghost guns (also known as “privately manufactured firearms”), seeks to incorporate these weapons within pre-existing definitions in the ATF’s authorizing statute, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). In spite of challenges to the regulation, …

Prejudice And Promise In The Early Years Of The Federal Judiciary, George L. Haskins

Maine Law Review

Preserving the dignity of the human individual and protecting individual rights from the excesses of governmental power have been endemic problems for politically organized society in the western world for centuries. From antiquity and the early middle ages comes the thought that "government" became necessary because of he sinfulness or depravity of man. But it was not suggested that rulers should be all-powerful nor that the people who are governed should be entirely at the mercy of government. Indeed, our classic ideal of the democratic state first emerged in Greece, then briefly again in Rome, and later — but for …

Perreault V. Parker: Findings Tainted By Error, Gisele M. Nadeau

Maine Law Review

An appellate court does not disturb a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and, therefore, usually confines its review to an assessment of a trial court's legal conclusions based on those findings of fact. The method used by a trial court in making factual findings, however, involves the application of legal principles. If a trial court fails properly to apply these legal principles in arriving at its findings of fact, these findings may be tainted by the error. This is so, for instance, when a trial court's findings of fact have been "manifestly influenced or controlled" …

The Enduring Relevance Of Congress Despite The Court's Shift To “Ordinary Reader” Statutory Interpretation, Abbe R. Gluck, Laila M. Robbins

Journal of Law and Policy

Has Congress become irrelevant to statutory interpretation? The dominant theoretical and doctrinal paradigm in American statutory interpretation has always been the conversation between Congress and the courts. Today, however, the Court’s new, second-generation textualists claim they have left Congress behind. They argue they have changed textualism’s perspective, from an “insider” perspective focused on Congress’s textual choices, to an “outsider” perspective based on how “ordinary people” read statutes. The Court’s self-professed shift away from a legiscentric approach, if true, would be a seismic shift in the conception of the judicial role. Whereas judges and scholars—including first-generation textualists—had for a century focused …

The Broad Church Of Modern Textualism, Nicole Steitz, Brian G. Slocum, Kevin Tobia

Journal of Law and Policy

Nearly thirty years ago, Justice Scalia’s Tanner lectures branded Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) as the anti-textualist archetype, a decision trumping the text’s plain meaning with a suspect judicial investigation of the law’s purpose or spirit. And so Holy Trinity seemed, until Gales and Solan’s groundbreaking empirical study supported an alternative reading of the key statutory term (“labor or service”) that would avoid this conflict between text and purpose. Taking inspiration from Gales and Solan, we reconsider Holy Trinity using the precepts of modern textualism, with its increased emphasis on context, pragmatics, anti-literalism, legal meaning, holistic meaning, non-compositionality, …

The Pet Fish Canon, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Journal of Law and Policy

Inspired by the work of the late Professor Larry Solan, this article proposes that judges recognize as one of the textualist canons of statutory construction a “pet fish” canon. Such a canon would posit that when an ordinary reader would understand two or more words to yield a meaning that is different than the sum of the two words defined separately, the statutory interpreter should not disaggregate them. The Roberts Court has already followed such a linguistic precept in some statutory cases, and this article proposes that the Court recognize this as a canon considered at least as seriously as …

Grammar & Syntax Arguments On The Roberts Court, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Journal of Law and Policy

In his excellent book, The Language of Judges, Professor Solan demonstrates how judges use grammatical or linguistic arguments to avoid acknowledging statutory ambiguity—and how they often get the grammar or linguistics wrong. Since his book was published, textualism has become the dominant interpretive approach on the U.S. Supreme Court—and we have seen increasingly prominent battles involving grammatical devices and rules. This comment takes Professor Solan’s analysis as a jumping off point to evaluate how grammar and linguistic arguments are employed on the modern Supreme Court, in the age of textualism. The comment offers a brief empirical and doctrinal assessment of …

Brief Of Professors William Araiza, Jeffrey Lubbers, And Peter M. Shane As Amici Curiae In Support Of Defendantappellant Federal Trade Commission, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Amici are law professors who teach and write in the fields of administrative law and statutory interpretation. Amicus William Araiza is the Stanley A. August Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. Amicus Jeffrey Lubbers is Professor of Practice in Administrative Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Amicus Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law. As leading administrative law scholars, amici have a strong interest in the sound development of administrative law in the federal courts, and are submitting this …

Separation Of Powers Restrictions On Judicial Rulemaking: A Case Study Of Federal Rule 4, Ralph U. Whitten

Maine Law Review

Debates over the validity of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have historically centered on the "substantive rights" restriction of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934. While Supreme Court decisions from Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. through Hanna v. Plumer and beyond have arguably deprived the restriction of any practical force, scholars have consistently favored a more rigorous interpretation of the directive that federal rules not "abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive rights." Despite the historic impotence of the substantive rights restriction, discussions of the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continue, even today, to center on the substantive …

U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit To Hold Oral Argument At The Maurer School Of Law, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—one of 13 appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary—will hear oral argument at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law on Thursday, October 24.

The arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Law School’s DeLaney Moot Court Room. The proceedings are open to the public, with seating available on a first-come, first-served basis starting at 9 a.m. An overflow room will be available if needed. The arguments are expected to conclude by 12:30 p.m.

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has a …

Greater Of Two Evils: Trial Penalty Or Plea Penalty?, Breanne Potter

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article critiques the prevalence of plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system, arguing that while it is often seen as a necessary evil for efficiency, it undermines constitutional rights and perpetuates injustice. The author introduces the concept of the "plea penalty," which refers to the significant and often overlooked consequences of accepting a guilty plea, such as the loss of rights and long-term collateral consequences. The article challenges the notion that the trial penalty—harsher sentences for those who go to trial—is the only concern, emphasizing that the plea penalty can be equally detrimental. It advocates for systemic reforms …

Dissenting Authority, Guyora Binder

Journal Articles

This essay explicates J.B. White’s rhetorical conception of authority as a potentially collaborative achievement and contrasts it with the conception of authority as surrender of judgment prevailing in legal philosophy. On White’s view, authority is not an instrument held and deployed, but is conferred, like respect. This conception of authority illuminates three puzzles concerning the relationship between dissent and legal authority. First, Legal Positivism’s purportedly descriptive account of law insists it must claim an authority to govern independent of justice and assent. Yet law’s language is replete with justice-based appeals for popular assent. White’s reading of the practice of legal …

Prudence, Role Morality, And Restraint: Judge Wilkinson On The Separation Of Powers, Katherine Mims Crocker, Jack Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

Caution in reviewing the actions of the legislative and executive branches has been a hallmark of the jurisprudence of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. The Constitution “at most gives judges specific authority to redress violations of specific provisions,” Judge Wilkinson writes in his book Cosmic Constitutional Theory. But even when doing so, “courts must exercise great caution before injecting themselves into the vortex of varied political questions,” for “[i]t is often far preferable to allow the political institutions under our Constitution to struggle among themselves, with each bringing to bear the respective arsenal of powers the Framers accorded them.” …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Incoherence Of Evidence Law, G. Alexander Nunn

Faculty Scholarship

What is the purpose of evidence law? The answer might seem intuitive. Evidence law exists, of course, to foster verdict accuracy, legitimacy, and efficiency. But these kindred aims often come into conflict. Policy tradeoffs are inescapable in evidence law, meaning that an evidentiary regime must clarify how its normative objectives cohere. Do accuracy, legitimacy, and efficiency work together on equal footing, such that the goal of a code is to maximize each objective to the extent possible? Or does one of evidence law’s aims take precedence over the rest? And if one goal takes priority, what is the role of …

Locke’S “Wild Indian” In United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Anthony W. Hobert Phd

American Indian Law Journal

This article explores the impact of John Locke’s Two Treatises on United States Indigenous property rights jurisprudence. After discussing Locke’s arguments, the article turns to the rationales of the first and last cases of the Marshall Trilogy—Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)—arguing that, contrary to prevailing political theory, Marshall’s opinion for the Court in Johnson puts forth a fundamentally Lockean justification for the dispossession of Indigenous property. This article also provides a brief analysis of Marshall’s explicit Vattelian rationale in Worcester, commentary on recent developments regarding the precedents, and recommendations for reconciling them within contemporary …

Resurrection, Bassim Al Shaker

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

American Legal Realism Today: An Idiosyncratic Restatement, Mark Tushnet

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Caroline Faye Radell, Udhanth Mallasani

Northwestern Law Journal des Refusés

No abstract provided.

Decoding Dobbs: A Typology To Better Understand The Roberts Court's Jurisprudence, Katie Yoder

Honors Projects

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized Substantive Due Process (“SDP”) in the early twentieth century. In Lochner v. New York, the Court established that there are certain unenumerated rights that are implied by the Fourteenth Amendment.Though SDP originated in a case about worker’s rights and liberties, it quickly became relevant to many cases surrounding personal intimate decisions involving health, safety, marriage, sexual activity, and reproduction.Over the past 60 years, the Court relied upon SDP to justify expanding a fundamental right to privacy, liberty, and the right to medical decision making. Specifically, the court applied these concepts to allow for freedoms …

Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver

Brooklyn Law Review

Where an administrative regulation is deemed by a court to be illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, courts sometimes issue nationwide injunctions. In other words, instead of holding that the regulation cannot be applied to the individuals before the court, the court prohibits the agency from applying the regulation anywhere in the country, including to others not before the court. This article explores the debate surrounding the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions. While at first glance such injunctions may seem to make sense, they can have serious consequences, including risk of abuse and forum shopping, amplification of erroneous decisions, and the negative …

Governance And Islam In East Africa: Muslims And The State In Kenya And Tanzania, Farouk Topan, Kai Kresse, Erin E. Stiles, Hassan Mwakimako

Exploring Muslim Contexts

Explores the relationship between Muslim communities and the State in East Africa in political, institutional and legal contexts

• Focuses on the relationship between Muslims and the State in Kenya and Tanzania
• Asks which factors, both within and outside the Muslim community, shape and affect this relationship in contemporary times
• Presents 13 case studies exploring governance issues within and across the categories of politics, institutions and law in Kenya and Tanzania
• Identifies cross-cutting issues of governance and Muslim communities which are relevant beyond East Africa

Recent studies of Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania have tended either to examine governance of Muslims …

The Next Thirty Years: Developments In Mandamus Jurisprudence In The Last Thirty Years And Why The General Rule That Mandamus Is Unavailable To Review The Denial Of Summary Judgment Is Inconsistent With Modern Mandamus Jurisprudence Under The In Re Prudential Balancing Test, Timothy Delabar

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Colorblind And Color Mute: Words Unspoken In U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Chris Chambers Goodman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court holds oral arguments on 70 to 80 cases each year, with fewer than a dozen most years involving issues around race or ethnicity. When the salience of race is clear, Supreme Court observers would expect to hear racial terms used in the arguments by counsel, as well as in the Justice’s questions.

Surprisingly, this research study demonstrates that is not the case. These racial terms - such as color, discriminate, minority, race, and its various related terms like racial, racially, racist, as well as combinations like race-neutral, and race-blind - only sparsely appear in oral argument …

Survival Labor, Yvette Butler

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article makes one simple, novel claim: crime is labor when it generates income, allows individuals to pursue self-sufficiency, or allows them to fulfill societal expectations of providing for or caring for dependents. When individuals engage in survival crimes, instead of seeing them as criminals, we should see them as workers engaged in survival labor.

The carceral system continues to disproportionately harm racial minorities and people living in poverty. The foundations of many laws regulating racialized bodies and the policing of those bodies has created a culture where blackness is equivalent to criminality. While a penal abolitionist framework is helpful …

Slaughtering Slaughter-House: An Assessment Of 14th Amendment Privileges Or Immunities Jurisprudence, Caleb Webb

Senior Honors Theses

In 1872, the Supreme Court decided the Slaughter-House Cases, which applied a narrow interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment that effectually eroded the clause from the Constitution. Following Slaughter-House, the Supreme Court compensated by utilizing elastic interpretations of the Due Process Clause in its substantive due process jurisprudence to cover the rights that would have otherwise been protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In more recent years, the Court has heard arguments favoring alternative interpretations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause but has yet to evaluate them thoroughly. By applying the …

Are They All Textualists Now?, Austin Peters

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent developments at the U.S. Supreme Court have rekindled debates over textualism. Missing from the conversation is a discussion of the courts that decide the vast majority of statutory interpretation cases in the United States—state courts. This Article uses supervised machine learning to conduct the first-ever empirical study of the statutory interpretation methods used by state supreme courts. In total, this study analyzes over 44,000 opinions from all fifty states from 1980 to 2019.

This Article establishes several key descriptive findings. First, since the 1980s, textualism has risen rapidly in state supreme court opinions. Second, this rise is primarily attributable …