Courts Commons^™

The Court And The Killing State, Eric Berger

Michigan Law Review

A review of Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection. By Corinna Barrett Lain.

A Guide To The Best Reading Of Environmental Law: Presumptions For Stability In Statutory Interpretation, Sanne H. Knudsen

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Administrative law is in flux and its doctrines flexible. Recent doctrinal shifts—like the ousting of Chevron and the introduction of the major questions doctrine—raise significant questions about how courts will determine the best reading of statutes and carve out a role for agency expertise in statutory interpretation. For environmental law, a field that relies heavily on federal agencies for implementation, the flux and flexibility of administrative law presents challenges. But they also present opportunities.

On the one hand, the recent changes to administrative law pose a destabilizing and deregulatory risk for environmental law unless courts develop a consistent methodology for …

Courts Of Indian Offenses, Courts Of Indian Resistance, Alexandra Fay

Michigan Law Review

In the late nineteenth century, the Department of the Interior created the Courts of Indian Offenses with the express goal of eliminating elements of Native culture through the coercive power of criminal law. The courts stood on dubious constitutional grounds, were almost universally replaced by tribal courts in the twentieth century, and have been widely derided as crude assimilationist tools.

This Article examines the Courts of Indian Offenses to study how law and legal institutions operate as sites of colonial struggle. The Courts of Indian Offenses were formally created to criminalize Native culture. In practice, they were more complicated. Native …

Legalistic Noncompliance, Daniel Deacon, Leah Litman

Articles

Will the executive branch comply with court orders? That question has garnered a considerable amount of attention over the first few months of the second Trump administration. But what does it mean to comply? And what if a form of noncompliance is already occurring?

This Article documents an emerging practice that has dominated the second Trump administration's approach to unfavorable court rulings, a practice this Article calls legalistic noncompliance. Legalistic noncompliance occurs when the administration uses the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not. Drawing …

Gender And Consensus On The Courts, Kaleigh A. Ruiz

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

During group deliberation, women tend to be the harbingers of compromise, vying for consensus on even the most contentious topics. However, women cannot succeed in this endeavor if gender bias prevents their voices from being heard. In federal courts, collaboration is essential to reaching the simple majority needed to resolve a case. While the courts already function under norms of collegiality during deliberations, the practice of writing a separate opinion to acknowledge disagreement with a majority opinion remains relatively common. In this Article, I test two competing theories as to the effects of women judges on consensus. On one hand, …

Trump V. Slaughter: Brief Of Independent Agency Board Members And Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Samuel Bagenstos

Appellate Briefs

Amici are removed board members from independent federal agencies and scholars whose work includes the study of independent agencies and the separation of powers between the President and Congress. Amici advance the view that there are federal agencies whose responsibility for protecting the safety and stability of the national infrastructure or ensuring the structural integrity of government necessitates their independence. Significant negative consequences would likely follow if these agencies were to lose their independence and their work were to become politicized.

Bowe V. United States: Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Leah Litman, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae are law professors who research, study, teach, and write about the writ of habeas corpus and federal postconviction relief. They share an interest in seeing habeas law applied in a way that ensures the just adjudication of claims.

Fee-Shifting Shortcuts, Maureen Carroll

Articles

Federal fee-shifting statutes, which allow certain prevailing plaintiffs to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from the defendant, are critically important to civil rights enforcement. When it comes to the interpretation of these statutes, however, a wide gap separates the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court and the decisions issued by lower courts. According to the Supreme Court, the calculation of a feeshifting award requires a highly contextualized inquiry, specific to the plaintiff’s attorneys and claims; in the lower courts, by contrast, judges take a set of welltrodden shortcuts that flatten many of the differences the case law makes relevant.

This …

Identifying The Guilty, Protecting The Innocent: Amending The Federal Rules Of Evidence To Address Admissibility Of Eyewitness Identification, Louisa M. A. Heiny

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Mistaken eyewitness identification is among the most common factors in wrongful conviction cases. Indeed, hundreds of innocent defendants have been convicted for a crime they did not commit, their fate sealed by an eyewitness who convincingly, but mistakenly, testified, “That’s the one!”

Scientific researchers have documented the fallibility of eyewitness identification for decades. Their collective work has produced recommendations for eyewitness identification reform, focusing on procedural problems most likely to result in mistaken identification. The law in this area, however, has not kept pace with the science. Rather than representing a cohesive series of safeguards against inaccurate eyewitness identifications, federal …

Taming The Kangaroos, Matt Garcia

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Low-level state courts frequently disregard federal law. And though the judgments of these courts have profound legal consequence for millions of Americans, they receive little oversight. Rather than bastions of justice, low-level state courts are too often sites of lawlessness, earning them the shameful label “kangaroo courts.” This article proposes a path forward by which advocates can curb that lawlessness and enforce critically important federal protections.

As part of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a broad legislative effort to protect the national economy and public health infrastructure, Congress altered mandatory procedures in eviction suits. Evictions …

Tribal Legal Licensing Of Attorneys, House Counsel Status, And The Opportunity To Redefine The Jd Preferred Position And The Entire Lawyer Ecosystem, Nicholas J. Stamates

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The recognized right of Indian Tribes to license has been a known reality dating back to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) where state law was found inapplicable on the lands of the Cherokee. However, the modern implications of tribal licensing and regulation have only just begun to be explored in the context of the modern American regulatory system. In fact, the ability of Indian Tribes to license attorneys to practice law within their court systems has largely gone unexamined outside of a few exceptions such as the Tribal Law and Order Act …

La Ignorancia Es Atrevida: Hernandez V. New York And The Mistaken Exclusion Of Bilingual Jurors, Finley B. Davis

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

No abstract provided.

Automating International Human Rights Adjudication, Veronika Fikfak, Laurence R. Helfer

Michigan Journal of International Law

International human rights courts and treaty bodies are increasingly turning to automated decision-making (“ADM”) technologies to expedite and enhance their review of individual complaints. These tribunals have yet to consider many of the legal, normative, and practical issues raised by the use of different types of automation technologies for these purposes. This article offers a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the benefits and challenges of introducing ADM into international human rights adjudication. We argue in favor of using ADM to digitize documents and for internal case management purposes and to make straightforward recommendations regarding registration, inadmissibility, and the calculation of …

Court Forms And Court Reforms: Pro Se Litigants And The Limited Success Of Standardized Family Court Forms, Caroline Rogus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The first step in any civil lawsuit, long before a court will contemplate awarding relief, is initiating the court matter: a plaintiff must always start by effectively pleading their case. The court system rests upon the presumption that an attorney will create and file the requisite court documents—including complaints, answers, and motions—on behalf of their client. The reality, however, is that an extraordinarily high number of litigants do not have legal representation and must therefore proceed pro se and submit these documents on their own. Most jurisdictions offer pro se litigants standardized, fillable court forms. These forms are intended to …

The Sovereignty Problem In Federal Indian Law, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Articles

There is a sovereignty problem in federal Indian law-namely, that the federal government's sovereign defenses prevent tribal nations and individual Indian people from realizing justice in the courts. Often, compelling tribal and Indian claims go nowhere as the judiciary defers to the interests of the United States, even where Congress has expressly stated its support for tribal interests. Conversely, tribal judiciaries allow claims to proceed to the merits, invoking customary and traditional law to hold tribal governments accountable.

Sovereignty theory helps to explain why justice can be done in one court system but not another. But federal, state, and tribal …

Statutory Liquidation, Daniel Deacon

Articles

When might practice by the political branches settle the meaning of legal text? That question has mostly been taken up in the constitutional setting, with one strand of scholarship taking inspiration from Madison's statement in Federalist No. 37, that "{a}ll new laws ... are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series ef particular discussions and aqjudications." The prospect that post-enactment practice might liquidate the meaning of statutory text has been comparatively underexamined. That's not surprising. Under modern textualism, post-enactment considerations would seem to have little place. And under Chevron …

After Courts: Democratizing Statutory Law, Ryan D. Doerfler, Samuel Moyn

Michigan Law Review

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued for locating interpretive authority over law separately from those institutions tasked with formulating it. Hamilton’s vision, never accurate as a description of American practice, has not been credible for a long time. To the extent enormous power is still allocated to judges, our legal institutions have been out of step with our legal theory, which has long regarded them as political actors and policymakers. More practically, every term it is clearer and clearer that the role of the Supreme Court in statutory cases (including checking administrative rulemaking and other processes) is, if anything, …

Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing—How Courts Could Shape Future Health Regulation, Nicholas Bagley, Craig Garthwaite, Benedic Ippolito

Other Publications

The Trump administration recently issued an Executive Order aimed at delivering most-favored- nation (MFN) drug pricing to the US. The order instructs drug manufacturers to reduce the prices of brand-name drugs to match the lowest price among selected high-income countries. If drug makers do not make significant progress toward this goal, the administration will pursue several strategies to lower prices. Most notably, the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to propose a rule to impose MFN pricing. In all likelihood, the administration will revisit prior efforts to enact MFN pricing through the Center for Medicare …

Next Steps In Online Courts: Accelerating Access To Justice Through Court Technology, J.J. Prescott

Articles

For more than a decade, state courts have been expanding access to justice by adopting online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms and other outward-facing communication technologies. At a deep level, these reforms aim at improving society by bolstering the rule of law. At a surface level, these innovations recognize that the justice system works better when courts and law are easier and less costly to understand and use. In important respects, these efforts have been a success. The accessibility of many state courts is considerably more robust today than it was ten years ago, at least for small-stakes cases, like traffic …

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Law & Economics Working Papers

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using "explicit," "clear," and "unambiguous" statements - or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using "legally magic" words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than …

There Is No Helpful General Rule About Appealing Dismissals Without Prejudice, Bryan Lammon

Michigan Law Review Online

With some frequency, courts wrestle with whether litigants can appeal after dismissal without prejudice. But there is no helpful general rule to answer this question. That’s because the without-prejudice designation is more or less irrelevant to whether the dismissal is a final, appealable decision. In this Essay, I show that the nature of the underlying dismissal— what the dismissal did, not its without-prejudice nature—is what matters for appealability. Courts would do well to ignore whether an action was dismissed without prejudice when it comes to determining appealability.

The Last Frontier: Fair Procedure In Informal Administrative Adjudication, Michael Asimow

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The federal government engages in massive amounts of informal adjudication - a process that resolves a dispute between the government and a private party by making an individualized and legally binding decision without being required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the dispute is not settled. This article sketches the highly diverse world of federal informal adjudication and surveys the procedural requirements imposed on it by due process and federal statutes. It proposes a set of best practices for conducting and improving informal adjudication that are rooted in those legal requirements. Agencies should adapt these practices to their individual circumstances …

Evaluating The Elimination Of Peremptory Challenges In Arizona, Hailey Badger Gordon

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court confronted racial discrimination in jury selection in Batson v. Kentucky by prohibiting the use of race as a factor in exercising peremptory challenges. But Batson challenges rarely succeed in overcoming a challenged peremptory strike and have long been criticized as insufficient to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection. Justice Marshall correctly predicted in his concurring opinion in Batson that racial discrimination in jury selection would continue as long as peremptory challenges were permissible.

Recognizing Batson’s shortfalls, states have experimented with reforms ranging from lowering the required showing for a successful Batson challenge to enumerating presumptively impermissible …

Agency Use Of Indirect Benefits To Justify Regulation, Abe Eichner

Michigan Law Review

Executive agencies have long used indirect benefits—meaning benefits beyond the express purpose of a regulation—to justify their rulemakings. However, the statutes that provide agencies with regulatory authority rarely explicitly direct agencies to consider indirect benefits. Lower courts disagree over whether consideration of indirect benefits is permissible, and the Supreme Court has reserved the question for a future case. Courts and existing scholarship have largely asked whether particular statutory provisions authorize consideration of indirect benefits. This Note contends that, even without such statutory authorization, indirect benefits are presumptively permissible because they further three traditional administrative law values: rational decisionmaking, transparency, and …

Glossip V. State Of Oklahoma: Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici are law professors who teach and write about the federal courts, habeas corpus, and the relationship between federal and state law. A list of amici is attached as Appendix A. Amici sign this brief in their individual capacities and not on behalf of their institutions; institutional affiliations are provided solely for identification purposes.

Peripheral Detention, Transfer, And Access To The Courts, Jessica Rofé

Michigan Law Review

In the last forty years, immigration detention in the U.S. has grown exponentially, largely concentrated in the southern states and outside of the country’s metropoles. In turn, federal immigration officials routinely transfer immigrants from their communities to remote jails and prisons hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, often in jurisdictions where the law is more favorable to the government. These transfers are conducted without notice or process and frequently occur on weekends or in the predawn hours, when offices are closed and interested parties are lucky to access voicemail.

Federal immigration officials’ use of peripheral detention and transfer significantly …

Modular Bankruptcy: Toward A Consumer Scheme Of Arrangement, John A.E. Pottow

Articles

In the world of cross-border corporate insolvency, those in the know are familiar with the increasingly popular scheme of arrangement, the British quasi-reorganization procedure that allows a company to restructure some, but not all, of its debt. The typical scheme effects a corporate balance sheet reshuffling by supermajoritarian approval (and judicial "sanction") but often leaves other debt, such as the trade, untouched. A key conceptual component of the scheme mechanism is its intentional modularity, called by some its "selectivity." It does not require a comprehensive reckoning of all claims against a given debtor, only some. The scheme has proved popular-so …

Responding To Alternatives, Daniel T. Deacon

Michigan Law Review

This Article is the first to comprehensively analyze administrative agencies’ obligation to respond to alternatives to their chosen course of action. The obligation has been around at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm, and it has mattered in important cases. Most recently, the Supreme Court invoked the obligation as the primary ground on which to invalidate the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The obligation to respond to alternatives is also frequently invoked in the lower courts and in the …

The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring

Articles

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …

Reimagining Youngblood's Bad Faith Requirement: Safeguarding Criminal Defendants' Due Process Rights Through A Burden-Shifting Framework, Rita Elfarissi

Michigan Law Review

Criminal defendants face an uphill battle when attempting to prove that the government’s loss or destruction of evidence that could have played a significant role in their defense deprived them of their constitutional due process rights. To make this showing, the defendant must prove that the government lost or destroyed the evidence in bad faith. This requirement is problematic because direct evidence illustrating the subjective intent of the government officials who lost or destroyed the evidence is unlikely to exist, and in the off chance it does, the prosecution is unlikely to freely hand it over to the defendant. Thus, …