Courts Commons^™

Procedural Drift: How Judicial Restraint Enables Legalized Backsliding, Dessie Otachliska

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article introduces Procedural Drift, a new theory of constitutional erosion in which legality itself enables democratic decline. Legal forms remain intact, but their constraining force quietly recedes as procedural doctrines withdraw courts from sites of contestation. Executive power expands not by defying law, but by strategically complying with it—exploiting judicial restraint to evade review.

Building on Bruce Ackerman’s theory of constitutional moments and Kim Lane Scheppele’s concept of autocratic legalism, this Article develops a U.S.-specific account of democratic backsliding that is lawful, gradual, and institutionally embedded. It traces how judicial restraint—operating amid partisan alignment and epistemic fragmentation—erodes legal checks …

Recognition Without Authority? Why Vesting Government Recognition In The U.N. Credentials Committee Would Be A Mistake, Jorge Barrera-Rojas

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

When the legitimacy of a government is contested, courts, regional bodies, and states each decide independently who speaks for the state in law. In Recognition Rules, Justin Cole, Alaa Hachem, and Oona Hathaway argue that this fragmentation imposes real costs and propose to cure them by empowering the U.N. Credentials Committee to issue binding determinations of governmental authority across all international law contexts. This Article argues that, beyond Charter obstacles to such a reform, it would be a mistake. The effective-control criterion rewards actors who seize power by force over governments that retain democratic legitimacy; binding credentials decisions would …

Or Else: Statutes Without Sanctions And The Doctrine Of Meaningful Interpretation, Christian Davis

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Mankind has been fashioning laws for millennia. And while the form and substance of laws vary widely across times and places, all laws are unified by a fundamental reality that transcends the particular legal and political institutions of the day. To put it simply: laws only work if someone is prepared to enforce them.

As arbiters of the American legal system, state and federal judges are aware that—in order for a law to have the conduct-influencing effect it was designed to have—it must be supported by some version of an “or else” clause, a punishment or penalty sufficient to dissuade …

Reel It In: Untangling The Circuit Split On The Constitutionality Of Geofence Warrants Under The Fourth Amendment, Kate P. Risser

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note examines geofence warrants and their ongoing threat to constitutionally protected rights such as privacy, speech, and assembly. Part I will provide background information on geofence warrants and examine the prominent justifications for the use of the warrants. Part II will examine how law enforcement’s use of geofence warrants threatens citizens’ constitutionally protected fundamental rights like privacy and reproductive rights. Specifically, Part II addresses how geofence warrants disproportionately target and affect women, people of color, and low-income individuals. Part III will detail the history of the Fourth Amendment tracing its roots to before the Founding Era then exploring applicable …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Children's Rights Scholars And Advocates In Support Of Appellants' Opening Brief: Lighthiser V. Trump, Abigail L. Fleming, Douglas A. Ruley, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

For decades, constitutional doctrine has recognized that children possess enforceable constitutional rights and that their developmental, physical, and social differences from adults are important considerations in constitutional analysis. Courts may not impute adult capacities, privileges, or political agency to children when determining whether their rights may be vindicated, leaving them no democratic mechanism to alleviate their injuries.

The district court’s dismissal of the youth plaintiffs’ claims rests on precisely that error. Although the court recognized that the children alleged concrete, severe, and escalating harms caused by the challenged executive actions, it concluded that relief must come from the political branches …

Certiorari Transparency, Alexandra L. Klein, Michael L. Smith

Scholarly Articles

Amid increasing controversy over the Supreme Court’s amassing of power, rejection of precedent, reliance on the shadow docket, and Justices’ undisclosed acceptance of lavish gifts, legal scholars, commentators, and politicians have called for bold and far-reaching reforms to the Court, including term limits for Justices, stripping the Court of jurisdiction in certain cases, and adding Justices to the Court. This Article proposes a more subtle reform to the Court’s proceedings: the Court should make its certiorari de-terminations, in which it decides which cases to take up and review, public. Currently, the Court exercises near-complete discretion over the cases it decides …

Representing The Incommunicado Client: Regulating The Attorney-Client Relationship In A Civil Rights Emergency, Michael Kagan

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

When the government obstructs a detainee’s ability to communicate with attorneys, normal rules governing the formation of attorney-client relationships break down. While some work-arounds exist to allow lawyers to bring such cases to court, they have significant limitations and can create problems of their own. The legal profession and the courts should adopt new rules modeled on emergency medicine to facilitate the filing of urgent civil rights claims for clients who are not in a position to consent. In emergency medicine, physicians can presume client consent for certain narrow and urgent purposes. Certain lawyers, in extreme cases, should be able …

The Lone Dissent, Grant Christensen, Anne Mullins

Washington and Lee Law Review

What can be learned when a Supreme Court Justice decides to write a lone dissent? There exists a powerful set of incentives for Supreme Court opinions to achieve consensus. Although closely divided cases grab news headlines, unanimous opinions are actually the most commonly issued judicial alignment, and cases in which a single Justice dissents are the most unlikely. Despite voluminous academic discussion of judicial behavior, no legal scholarship has focused on the lone dissent. This Article is designed to insert consideration of lone dissenting opinions into the broader discussion of judicial behavior.

Looking at the set of Supreme Court opinions …

A Call For Canceling Compassionate Release And Restoring Federal Parole, Honorable Chief Judge C.J. Williams

Washington and Lee Law Review

The current federal sentencing scheme is a patchwork quilt of provisions that grant judges virtually unfettered and unreviewable discretion imposing sentences on the front-end and in granting compassionate release on the back end. It was not designed in the beginning to be this way. The advisory-only sentencing guidelines scheme we have now resulted from the Supreme Court’s finding that mandatory guidelines violated the Constitution. The recent sentencing reform movement—of which compassionate release is a significant part—has sought to find ways of ameliorating what is seen as the draconian result of the war on drugs. The question is whether granting Article …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars For The Advancement Of Children’S Constitutional Rights In Support Of Defendants-Appellants: Roy V. Darren Patterson Christian Academy, Catherine Smith, Tanya M. Washington, Robin Walker Sterling, Jeremiah Chin, Sara S. Hildebrand

Scholarly Articles

Amici are scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law. Amici draw this Court’s attention to the harms that four-year-olds in the LGBT community – LGBT children and children with LGBT parents – would bear should state-funded religious schools be granted a license to discriminate against them. An exemption to the Colorado Universal Preschool Program’s equal opportunity requirement would allow plaintiffs to discriminate against these children and raise unfair barriers in their paths to a high-quality education. An exemption would also inflict dignitary, psychological, and familial harms upon an entire class of young people – …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars For The Advancement Of Children’S Constitutional Rights And Students Engaged In Advancing Texas In Support Of Respondents: Mahmoud V. Taylor, Catherine E. Smith, Tanya Washington, Jeremiah Chin, Sarah Medina Camiscoli, Travis F. Chance

Scholarly Articles

Amici are members of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and United States legal scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law.

Students Engaged in Advancing Texas is a nonprofit organization founded by young people to develop civic leadership and belonging and represents students of various faiths and identities who have an interest in the outcome of this case.

Amici draw this Court’s attention to the constitutional harms that public school students and LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ parents would bear should the Court grant Petitioners’ injunctive relief.

Discretionary (In)Justice Continued: Discretion As A Tool To Deny Asylum, Kate Aschenbrenner Rodriguez

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In 2012, I published an article entitled Discretionary (In)justice: The Exercise of Discretion in Claims for Asylum. At that time, I was concerned because of a pattern I had seen of adjudicators in individual cases denying applications for asylum not on the basis of statutory eligibility but instead in an exercise of the adjudicator’s discretion. Since that time, the administrations of both the former President Trump and the now-current President Biden have used every legal tool available to them, including the exercise of discretion in asylum claims, to make it more difficult to obtain asylum and therefore to discourage …

Book Review, Jens Meierhenrich, The Violence Of Law: The Formation And Deformation Of Gacaca Courts In Rwanda (2024)., Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

In The Violence of Law, Jens Meierhenrich—currently professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science—offers a detailed, erudite, and encyclopedic analysis of the gacaca system.

Legalist Realism, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

This essay explores the scholarly footprint of Professor Megan Fairlie. This is a footprint of "legalist realism." Professor Fairlie was greatly concerned with legalism, in other words, the centrality of due process, the rights of the defendant, and human dignity in trials of individuals accused of the most heinous crimes. She was committed to put the law in international criminal law. And her view was one of realism, notably, that the structure of international institutions must be mindful of power politics, and expectations and ambitions ought to recognize the limitations and possibilities of politics in order to retain legitimacy and …

The Supreme Court During Covid-19: Keeping Its Head When Those About It Were Losing Theirs, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 suggests that one of the reasons for a life-tenured judiciary whose pay cannot be altered is because "judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humours in the society." Our Nation's history is replete with instances of ill humor leading to violations of constitutional rights. Wars, epidemics, natural disasters, civil unrest, and economic crises all demand governments to act and act swiftly. But courts, and particularly the United States Supreme Court, are necessary to check governments when they go too far in contending with an emergency.

Historically the country's courts have …

The Inconvenience Doctrine, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

Scholarly Articles

In a nation of stark inequalities, the Roberts Court is often portrayed as siding with the wealthy and powerful. Many scholars argue that the Court has abandoned legal principles altogether and instead simply chooses winners and losers based on the conservative majority’s political agenda. Meanwhile, scholarly examinations of the legal reasoning underlying the Court’s most impactful decisions are largely confined to specific subject areas. Such compartmentalized analyses, though, overlook broader patterns in the Court’s rulings that transcend substantive legal boundaries.

This Article bridges the gap in these parallel conversations by connecting the Roberts Court’s reasoning across many legal fields with …

The Siren Song Of Territoriality, Robin J. Effron, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Territoriality—the theory that a state’s physical borders determine its power and sovereignty—boasts a long, venerable history. For centuries, it served as the dominant political theory for myriad ideas. It defined a wide range of doctrines, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and prescriptive jurisdiction. By the middle of the twentieth century, though, this rigid territoriality no longer described or responded to the challenges of a society that had grown increasingly mobile and interconnected. Courts replaced inflexible territorial theories with more functional theories rooted in fairness and state regulatory interests.

In recent years, territoriality has seen a curious resurgence. The Supreme …

Bankruptcy Appeal Barriers, Jonathan M. Seymour

Washington and Lee Law Review

Appeals in bankruptcy do not look like appeals elsewhere in the federal court system. In particular, bankruptcy appeal barriers are strikingly distinctive. These barriers serve outright to block an appeal from being decided. An appellate court may dismiss an appeal, rather than consider the merits, if facts on the ground have changed so much since the original decision that providing a remedy to an appellant, even if victorious, would not be prudent. Take ongoing litigation in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case. A plan of reorganization was confirmed fixing the entitlements of victims to compensation. Dissenting creditors argued bitterly the plan …

Leveling The Playing Field For Racial Justice In The Civil Litigation System, Suzette M. Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Under the weight of the #MeToo movement and severe public pressure, Congress stopped this unseemly practice for a subset of Americans—those challenging sexual assault and harassment. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA), passed in 2022, gives these victims a choice of whether to challenge sexual misconduct in court or in arbitration. Such ubiquitous take-it-or-leave-it contracts are now unenforceable, giving this narrow swath of the population the power to decide for themselves how to challenge such outrageous wrongdoing. In Expanding the Ban on Forced Arbitration, Michael Z. Green argues that race discrimination claims should …

Unfenced: The Fourth Circuit Gives Geofencing Its First Appellate Go-Ahead In United States V. Chatrie, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In United States v. Chatrie, the Fourth Circuit issued the first federal appellate opinion on the Fourth Amendment status of geofencing queries. The opinion is significant because geofences present a conceptual challenge to the framework of Carpenter v. United States, the reigning Supreme Court precedent on the Fourth Amendment status of digital searches. That opinion held that long-term tracking of a target individual was a search. However, geofencing reveals information about an indeterminate number of individuals for only a short time, in virtue of their being at a target location during a target span of time. Does the …

A Major Wrong On A Private Right Of Action Under The Voting Rights Act, Macin Graber, Joshua A. Douglas

Washington and Lee Law Review

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Justice Neil Gorsuch posited in a short concurrence that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) does not confer a private right of action. That idea seemingly came out of nowhere, as Supreme Court precedent was clear and no one had suggested that the VRA did not allow private parties to bring suit. Justice Gorsuch’s one-paragraph concurrence was both unsupported and wrong. Even the single case he cited did not support his proposition.

An Arkansas district court and then the Eighth Circuit, however, followed Justice Gorsuch’s lead, ruling that only the federal Department …

Guess Who?: First-Time In-Court Identifications And Due Process, Natalie Beers

Washington and Lee Law Review

Juries believe eyewitnesses. When an identifying eyewitness takes the stand and points to a defendant in a courtroom, the jury is more likely to render a guilty verdict. But how reliable is that identification? What if the eyewitness is on the stand identifying a perpetrator for the first time, in the court room, rather than at the police station with a lineup or photo array? How do those suggestive circumstances implicate a criminal defendant’s due process rights?

First-time in-court identifications are inherently suggestive. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the suggestive nature of similar identifications, it did not directly address …

Implied Consent In Administrative Adjudication, Grace Moore

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Article III of the Constitution mandates that judges exercising the federal judicial power receive life tenure and that their pay not be diminished. Nonetheless, certain forms of adjudication have always taken place outside of Article III—in state courts, military tribunals, territorial courts, and administrative tribunals. Administrative law judges, employed by various federal administrative agencies, decide thousands of cases each year. A vast majority of the cases they decide deal with public rights, which generally include claims involving federal statutory rights or cases in which the federal government is a party. With litigant consent, however, the Supreme Court has upheld administrative …

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 …

Piercing The Procedural Veil Of Qualified Immunity: From The Guardians Of Civil Rights To The Guardians Of States’ Rights, Leo Yu

Washington and Lee Law Review

Scholars have found that, despite a split on the burden of proof for qualified immunity, courts agreed that defendants must bear the burden of pleading to raise qualified immunity as a defense. This Article is the first to find that, over the past decade, this established consensus has been disrupted, culminating in a fresh circuit split.

This Article investigates twelve Federal Courts of Appeals’ qualified immunity rulings on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and finds that six have required plaintiffs to anticipate defendants’ qualified immunity arguments at the pleading stage, essentially treating the negating of qualified immunity as an element of …

Amended Expert Disclosure Report: Navahine V. Dept. Of Transportation, State Of Hawai’I, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

From a historical and sociological legal perspective, children in America, including in Hawai'i, require extraordinary legal protection from the harm of climate change and the government actions causing them harm. Hawai'i has a long history and tradition of leading the way on broadening rights and protections under state law, particularly for children. The principles of intergenerational justice and equity at the heart of the public trust doctrine in Hawai'i similarly require that courts accord special attention and protection for children.

On June 20, 2024, the youth-powered Navahine case settled, resulting in the first constitutional climate settlement of its kind in …

What Roosevelt Did To Brown V. Board Of Education, Or Race And Court Packing, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Roughly one-third of American schools remain segregated. Scholars have offered a variety of explanations, mostly social and cultural, but sometimes legal, for why desegregation did not proceed effectively after Brown v. Board of Education. This Article articulates a less expected and previously undocumented cause: President Roosevelt's prior attempt at court packing slowed--even derailed--desegregation.

The story of what Roosevelt's court packing did to make the work of integration harder is a cautionary tale, particularly for those who want to alter the U.S. Supreme Court now in furtherance of a modern cause. The only reasonable route for reforming the Supreme Court must …

La Cour! La Mer!, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

The presence of courts—la Cour, certainement, mais d’autres aussi—weaves and wends throughout The Last Colony. Fundamentally, this is a story of courts (tribunals, arbitrations, etc.) righting wrongs or, in the least, setting a tune for wrongrighting to which political institutions then can hum along. Philippe Sands evokes the solemnity of legalism with the ‘La Cour!’ greeting, which he plays and replays, and with which he begins his book. These are welcoming words, for Sands, and also welcoming words for law, insofar as they signal the opening of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—La Cour!—for the …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars For The Advancement Of Children’S Constitutional Rights In Support Of Defendants-Appellees: St. Mary Catholic Parish V. Roy, Lauren Fontana, Catherine Smith, Tanya M. Washington, Robin Walker Sterling, Suzette Malveaux, Jeremiah Chin, Sara S. Hildebrand

Scholarly Articles

Amici are scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law. Amici draw this Court’s attention to the harms that four-year-olds in the LGBT community – LGBT children and children with LGBT parents – would bear should state-funded religious schools be granted a license to discriminate against them. An exemption to Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program’s equal-opportunity requirement would allow plaintiffs to discriminate against these children and plant unfair barriers in their paths to a high-quality education and inflict dignitary, psychological, and familial harms upon an entire class of young people solely because of their or their …

Judicial-Ish Efficiency: An Analysis Of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs In Delaware Superior Court, Jordan Hicks

Washington and Lee Law Review

Since the late twentieth century, federal and state jurisdictions across the United States have explored the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs to resolve legal disputes. ADR programs provide extrajudicial mechanisms through which parties can resolve their disputes without the delay and expense of a traditional judicial proceeding. Courts and practitioners alike have lauded ADR programs. For litigators, ADR programs are a way to deliver outcomes to clients quickly and efficiently. For courts, ADR programs are a way to remove cases from overcrowded dockets.

While ADR is generally considered to be speedier and more cost-efficient than a trial, little …