Courts Commons^™

Gonzales, Casey And The Viability Rule, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

Gonzales v. Carhart upheld a federal ban on intact D&E abortions. The dissenters in Gonzales accused the majority of ignoring the rule that a state may only prohibit abortion of a viable fetus, one capable of life outside the womb. The continuing discord over the viability rule highlights an issue that remains unsettled 34 years after Roe: Why may a state protect the life of a fetus after it reaches viability, but not before? Professor John Hart Ely long ago noted Roe's failure to justify the viability rule, observing that the Court's defense seems to mistake a definition for a …

The Supreme Courts Municipal Bond Decision And The Market-Participant Exception To The Dormant Commerce Clause, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Does it violate the dormant Commerce Clause for a state to exempt interest earned on its own bonds, but no others, from income taxation? In a recent decision, the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. Six members of the Court found the case controlled by the state-self-promotion exception to the dormancy doctrine's antidiscrimination rule. Three of those Justices, however, went further by also invoking the longstanding market-participant exception to sustain the discriminatory state tax break. This Essay challenges that alternative line of analysis. According to the author, the plurality's effort to apply the market-participant principle: (1) invites a …

Alive But Not Well: Manifest Disregard After Hall Street, Kevin P. Murphy

Georgia Law Review

Arbitration is supposed to make dispute resolution faster and more cost-effective for litigants. To this end, Congress severely limited the ways in which a court can review an arbitrator's decision. But for the last fifty years courts have allowed parties an additional non statutory avenue for challenging arbitration awards. Where an arbitrator makes a decision in manifest disregard of the law, a court may vacate the award. To prove manifest disregard,parties must prove the arbitrator was aware of the law that should govern the dispute, but deliberately chose to ignore it. This often-argued, but seldom successful, claim increases the costs …

A Rodent In Robes, Donald E. Wilkes Jr.

Popular Media

Because of the credible (but ultimately unresolved) sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill and others at his confirmation hearings, as well as his creepy-crawly anti-individual rights voting record on the Supreme Court, nearly every time U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas visits a university campus there are protests by faculty and students, and now Michael Adams' decision to invite Thomas to be the commencement speaker at the upcoming UGA graduation ceremony has created a furor. For years, UGA administrators appear to have tolerated sexual harassment on campus, and in recent months there have been startling revelations of …

Arbitration And Article Iii, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Does arbitration violate Article III? Despite the critical need for a coherent theory to answer this question, few commentators or courts have made serious attempts to provide one. For much of the country's history, federal courts conveniently could avoid this nettlesome question. Prior to the twentieth century, courts simply declined to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements as unenforceable attempts to appropriate their jurisdiction. From the early decades of the twentieth century (with the enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in 1925) through the 1960s, the non-arbitrability doctrine prevented arbitrators from resolving issues of federal statutory law. Notably, while both of …

"I'M Sorry, I Can't Answer That": Supreme Court Confirmations, Judicial Independence, And Positive Legal Scholarship, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

The United States Constitution grants to the Senate the duty to provide its “advice and consent” to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Just how senators should exercise that duty, however, is deeply contested. Much of the dispute about the Senate's role involves the appropriate scope of questions the senators should ask, and what nominees should be expected to answer, at the confirmation hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Opponents of vigorous senatorial questioning argue that such questioning infringes on the independence of the judiciary; proponents argue that the nominees' failure to answer probing questions hinders the Senate's constitutional …

What Do We Have Against Parents?: An Assessment Of Judicial Bypass Procedures And Parental Involvement In Abortions By Minors, Wade Schueneman

Georgia Law Review

It is the established law of the land that minors enjoy a limited right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. States may restrain the exercise of this right by requiring parental consent or notification, but they must allow minors an opportunity to bypass consent requirements. This Note examines the history and present state of judicial and nonjudicial bypass mechanisms. It details the constraints and requirements imposed by state and federal constitutions, assesses the current landscape of parental involvement statutes, and provides prescriptive analysis as to how states might choose to refine and improve their bypass mechanisms to better protect parental rights.

Making The Law: Unpublication In The District Courts, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

In recent years, one particular area of focus for legal scholars concerned about the increasing privatization and opacity of courts has been the issue of systematic unpublication of judicial opinions by the appellate courts. Judges have issued dueling opinions on the constitutionality of the practice and traded polemics on its appropriateness. Practitioners – whose voices often seem lost (or at least muted) on issues like this – are in the thick of the debate. No longer merely academic, this debate has even spawned a change in the rules of appellate procedure (one that amusingly pulled off the difficult feat of …

"Sociological Legitimacy" In Supreme Court Opinions, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Analysis of a Supreme Court opinion ordinarily begins from the premise that the opinion is a transparent window into the Court's thinking, such that the reasons offered by the Court are, or ought to be, the reasons that account for the holding. Scholars debate the strength of the Court's reasoning, question or defend the Court's candor, and propose alternative ways of justifying the ruling. This Article takes issue with the transparency premise, on both descriptive and normative grounds. Especially in controversial cases, the Court is at least as much concerned with presenting its holding in a way that will win …

The State Of The Judiciary: A Corporate Perspective, Larry D. Thompson, Charles J. Cooper

Scholarly Works

The rule of law depends on highly talented, independent judges who conscientiously strive to ensure that the law is consistently applied in a principled and predictable manner. This Essay addresses two potential threats to judicial independence and the rule of law that we believe warrant special attention at this time. First, inadequate judicial salaries pose a threat to the quality and independence of the judiciary. Judges' real pay has declined substantially over the past generation, even as the compensation of other callings within the legal profession has risen dramatically. This growing disparity in pay has prompted an increasing number of …

The State Of Judiciary: A Corporate Perspective, Larry D. Thompson

Scholarly Works

The rule of law depends on highly talented, independent judges who conscientiously strive to ensure that the law is consistently applied in a principled and predictable manner This Essay addresses two potential threats to judicial independence and the rule of law that we believe warrant special attention at this time. First, inadequate judicial salaries pose a threat to the quality and independence of the judiciary. Judges' real pay has declined substantially over the past generation, even as the compensation of other callings within the legal profession has risen dramatically. This growing disparity in pay has prompted an increasing number of …

The Future Of Footnote Four, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. generated the most famous footnote-and perhaps the most famous passage-in all of the American Judiciary's treatment of constitutional law. Among other things, Footnote Four suggested that "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. It pervaded the work of the Warren Court and has played a prominent role …

The Rehnquist Court: A "By The Numbers" Retrospective, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the U.S. Supreme Court for nineteen years, longer than any other Chief Justice in the 20th century. Despite this longevity, however, there is little consensus on just what the legacy of the Rehnquist Court is. Was the Rehnquist Court a restrained Court that embraced a limited, text-based reading of the Constitution? Or was it a much more aggressive Court, responsible for a resurgence of conservative judicial activism? Is it best epitomized by the “swaggering confidence” that put a President in office, or the cautious minimalism that disappointed its conservative supporters by failing …

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud class actions. Instead, courts have tried in vain to fashion common-law deceit and misrepresentation remedies to fit open-market fraud. The result is a relatively ineffective system with a hallmark feature: unpredictable damage awards. This poses a significant fraud deterrence problem from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint.

In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify open-market damage principles and to facilitate earlier dismissal of cases without compensable economic losses. Instead, in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, it further confused the damage issue by (1) perpetuating the …

Imports Or Made-In-China: Comparison Of Two Constitutional Cases In China And The United States, Xiao Li

LLM Theses and Essays

When its economic increase attracts the global attention, China is also looking for a break-through in its judicial reform. The Qi v. Chen case (2001) was considered to be the Chinese version of Marbury v. Madison and gave rise to a heated discussion of the judicial review power in China. This article will analyze the doubts on the Qi case and the prospects of judicial review it indicates through comparison with Marbury v. Madison. Although Qi v. Chen opened the door for constitutional litigation, its dramatic facts and strained application of the Constitution threw it into question. Nevertheless, its effect …

Clerks, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Book Review of Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court, Artemus Ward and David L. Weiden. NYU, 2006. Pp xiv, 337. and Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk, Todd C. Peppers. Stanford, 2006. Pp xv, 301

The Roberts Court: Year 1, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

This paper is an empirical analysis of the Supreme Court's recently-ended 2005 term, including an examination of the issues raised by, and the ideological direction of, the decisions issued by the Court. In addition to reviewing the work of the Court as a whole, the paper also separately examines the jurisprudence of new Justices Roberts and Alito. In doing so, it raises the possibility that these justices may have more in common with each other than with the Court's more established conservative members. The paper also demonstrates that the Court, pursuant to one of Justice Roberts' frequently stated goals, was …

International Law And Rehnquist-Era Reversals, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

In the last years of Chief Justice Rehnquist's tenure, the Supreme Court held that due process bars criminal prosecution of same-sex intimacy and that it is cruel and unusual to execute mentally retarded persons or juveniles. Each of the later decisions not only overruled precedents set earlier in Rehnquist's tenure, but also consulted international law as an aid to construing the U.S. Constitution. Analyzing that phenomenon, the article first discusses the underlying cases, then traces the role that international law played in Atkins, Lawrence, and Simmons. It next examines backlash to consultation, and demonstrates that critics tended to overlook the …

John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This article explores the nature and origins of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' engagement with international and foreign law and norms. It first discusses Stevens' pivotal role in the revived use of such norms to aid constitutional interpretation, as well as 1990s opinions testing the extent to which constitutional protections reach beyond the water's edge and 2004 opinions on post-September 11 detention. It then turns to mid-century experiences that appear to have contributed to Stevens' willingness to consult foreign context. The article reveals that as a code breaker Stevens played a role in the downing of the Japanese general …

Gatekeeping After Gilbert: How Lawyers Should Address The Court's New Emphasis, Brian Benner, Ronald L. Carlson

Popular Media

In the world of modern trials, expert witnesses are the coin of the realm. Lawyers know that most of the time, experts are case-breakers. Their demeanor, knowledge, and presentation ability are key qualities. Accordingly, their persuasive effect on modern lay jurors makes it incumbent on judges to ensure that an expert's opinions are appropriately directed. That means not allowing an economist to testify about the medical dynamics of bone disease, for example.

Is There A Bias Against Education In The Jury Selection Process?, Hillel Y. Levin, John W. Emerson

Scholarly Works

Herbert Spencer famously said that a jury is “a group of twelve people of average ignorance.” That is not a particularly rosy picture of juror competence, but it presents a far better view than the one held by many -- if not most -- modern commentators. The more common contemporary sentiment was captured by Mark Twain when he wrote, in his inimitable style, “[w]e have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve [people] every day who don't know anything and can't read.” Specifically, …

Supremacy And Diplomacy: The International Law Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

In 2003-2004, a Presidential campaign year dominated by debates about international affairs and international law, the U.S. Supreme Court took an unusual number of cases of international import. The Court considered the Alien Tort Claims Act and the future of human rights suits in U.S. courts, the applicability of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to claims involving Nazi-stolen artwork, the applicability of American antitrust law to foreign anticompetitive activity, and the legality of the Guantanamo detentions. A great deal of ink has been spilled analyzing the individual impacts of each of these cases. What has been less considered is how …

"If The Train Should Jump The Track.. .": Divergent Interpretations Of State And Federal Employment Discrimination Statutes, Alex B. Long

Georgia Law Review

As interpretational issues surrounding federal employment discrimination statutes have become more complex and controversial, there have arisen more opportunities for parallel state anti-discrimination law to jump the track" and take alternative courses. Not surprisingly, when dealing with their own parallel state statutes, a number of state appellate courts in recent years have chosen this course of action. Even where state and federal employment discrimination have not yet taken different paths, the potential for such divergent interpretations of state and federal anti-discrimination law has increased in recent years to the point where we may enter an era not unlike that of …

The Under-Appreciated Value Of Advisory Guidelines, Erica J. Hashimoto

Scholarly Works

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 provided that the trial court "shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the range" set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") issued by the Sentencing Commission. With that one phrase, the Act created a system of guidelines that was binding upon judges, rather than simply advisory. Concerns about excessive disparity and undue leniency in sentencing unquestionably drove the political coalition that passed the Act. It is not clear, however, why Congress believed that mandatory-as opposed to advisory-guidelines were necessary to address those concerns. With the benefit of hindsight, it is …

A Tragedy Of The Common: The Common Interest Rule, Its Common Misuses, And An Uncommon Solution, Nicole Garsombke

Georgia Law Review

Almost every state allows some form of the common interest rule, which protects communications and documents exchanged between attorney, client, and certain third parties from waiver of the attorney-client privilege. This Note is a critique of two important exceptions to privilege waiver, the common interest and coclient rules, and discusses the rationales and justifications for the exceptions, scenarios to which the exceptions apply, and other confusing elements of courts' applications and interpretations.An examination of the common interest and coclient rules in Georgia is provided to give a particular case study of the development and use of these two exceptions. Finally, …

The Future Of The Lemon Test: A Sweeter Alternative For Establishment Clause Analysis, Marcia S. Alembik

Georgia Law Review

For over three decades the Supreme Court has applied the three-pronged Lemon test to determine whether state actions violate the Establishment Clause. While the Lemon test remains the most widely accepted test for Establishment Clause analysis,the recent Supreme Court decisions of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky have highlighted the Court's ongoing unrest with its application. Although attempts at total replacement of the test have thus far proved unsuccessful, modifications and alternatives to the test and its individual prongs are continually introduced and applied. The Court's lack of a consistent, definite test for Establishment Clause …

The Paradox Of Omnipotence: Courts, Constitutions, And Commitments, David S. Law

Georgia Law Review

Sovereigns, like individuals, must sometimes make commitments that limit their freedom of action in order to accomplish their goals. Scholars have observed that constitutional arrangements can, by restricting a sovereign's power, enable the sovereign to make such commitments. The opposite, however, can also be true: constitutional arrangements can and do impede sovereign commitment by entrenching inalienable governmental powers and immunities. This Article explores the nature and origins of the commitment problems that sovereigns face, and the role of courts in solving such problems. It begins by setting forth an analytical distinction between effective and persuasive commitments. Effective commitments are made …

The Swift, Silent Sword Hiding In The (Defense) Attorney's Arsenal: The Inefficacy Of Georgia's New Offer Of Judgment Statute As Procedural Tort Reform, Merritt E. Mcalister

Georgia Law Review

Offer of judgment provisions, initially creatures of state law but codified in 1938 as Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are neither widely used nor widely understood. Both federal and state offer of judgment rules operate to penalize a plaintiff who fails to accept, in light of the ultimate judgment, a reasonable settlement offer. Scholars have often criticized the federal rule's minimal impact as a tool to encourage settlement, and several states, including Georgia in a recent enactment, have made efforts to create offer of judgment provisions that provide severe penalties-attorney's fees and costs-for an offeree who …

Taking Your Case To The Court Of Public Opinion – Strategic, Legal And Ethical Implications Conference, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., C. Ronald Ellington, Lonnie T. Brown, David L. Balser, Sally Yates, Peter Canfield, Bruce Harvey, Paul Butler, Joseph Gladden, Larry D. Thompson, Robert Rothman, Linda Disantis, Kenneth Canfield, Adam Liptak

Conferences and Symposia to 2010

During the daylong conference, judges, lawyers and members of the news media debated the professional and moral consequences of discussing legal cases with the media.

The Proven Key: Roles And Rules For Dictionaries In The Patent Office And The Courts, Joseph Scott Miller, James A. Hilsenteger

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in its continuing effort to develop a patent claim construction jurisprudence that yields predictable results, has turned to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and similar sources with increasing frequency. This paper explores, from both an empirical and a normative perspective, the Federal Circuit's effort to shift claim construction to a dictionary-based approach. In the empirical part, we present data showing that the Federal Circuit has, since its own in banc Markman decision in April 1995, used reference works such as dictionaries to construe claim terms with steadily increasing frequency. In addition, and contrary to …