Courts Commons^™

The Hundred-Years War: The Ongoing Battle Between Courts And Agencies Over The Right To Interpret Federal Law, Nancy M. Modesitt

All Faculty Scholarship

Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron decision, the primary responsibility for interpreting federal statutes has increasingly resided with federal agencies in the first instance rather than with the federal courts. In 2005, the Court reinforced this approach by deciding National Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, which legitimized the agency practice of interpreting federal statutes in a manner contrary to the federal courts' established interpretation, so long as the agency interpretation is entitled to deference under the well-established Chevron standard. In essence, agencies are free to disregard federal court precedent in these circumstances. This Article analyzes the question left …

The Stockley Verdict: An Explainer, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

The purpose o f this document is to help explain some o f the existing Missouri law that Judge Wilson used in his opinion. It does not take a side on the opinion itself. At the end o f the day, the decision Judge Wilson made was based on his call on various disputed factual questions. The law was not, for the most part, at issue. I attempt only to describe the legal framework within with Judge Wilson decided the case; not to support or to criticize his verdict. Each person will ultimately have to make his or her own …

Guest Editors’ Introduction To Special Issue On Substance Abuse And Addiction In Family Courts, Barbara A. Babb, Gloria Danziger, Judith D. Moran

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Law Students Should Take The Federal Courts Course, Roger L. Goldman

All Faculty Scholarship

The most unique feature of the American judiciary is its dual system of trial courts, one state and one federal. This article explores the reasons traditionally given for the need for lower federal courts and whether, in practice, the federal courts are actually serving those needs. For example, it has been assumed that state courts are less hospitable to federal civil rights and consumer claims than federal courts, yet in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs’ lawyers prefer filing claims in state courts under state anti-discrimination or consumer laws rather than federal laws to prevent removal of the case to federal court. The …

Setting The Size Of The Supreme Court, F. Andrew Hessick, Samuel P. Jordan

All Faculty Scholarship

As with any institutional feature, the size of the Supreme Court should be informed by a definition of functional goals. This article describes how the current size of the Supreme Court is largely untethered from any such definition, and it begins the process of understanding how size and Court performance might interact. To do so, it identifies a list of institutional goals for the Supreme Court and explores how changing the size of the Court promotes or obstructs the attainment of those goals. Given that the Court's institutional goals are numerous and occasionally in tension, there is no definitive answer …

Shareholders In The Jury Box: A Populist Check Against Corporate Mismanagement, Ann M. Scarlett

All Faculty Scholarship

The recent subprime mortgage disaster exposed corporate officers and directors who mismanaged their corporations, failed to exercise proper oversight, and acted in their self-interest. Two previous waves of corporate scandals in this decade revealed similar misconduct. After the initial scandals, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to prevent the next crisis in corporate governance through legislative and regulatory actions such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Those attempts failed. Shareholder derivative litigation has also failed because judges accord corporate executives great deference and thus rarely impose liability for breaches of fiduciary duties.

To prevent the next crisis in …

Labor Injunctions In Bankruptcy: The Norris-Laguardia Firewall, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

This article considers whether federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, are authorized to issue injunctions in connection with various kinds of labor disputes arising after the filing of a petition in bankruptcy. The question takes on renewed importance in light of the record number of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in 2008, including filings by two of the three major American automakers, which are unionized. Given the increasing complexity of some of these notorious reorganizations, the likelihood of post-petition labor disputes appears to have correspondingly increased. In agreement with the few federal circuits that have considered the question, the article concludes that, …

A Review Of “How Judges Think” By Richard A Posner, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

This is a short review of How Judges Think by Richard Posner.

Reevaluating Where We Stand: A Comprehensive Survey Of America’S Family Justice Systems, Barbara A. Babb

All Faculty Scholarship

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well-being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time-consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow-up to her comprehensive 1998 …

Introduction To Special Issue On Unified Family Courts, Barbara A. Babb, Gloria Danziger

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Irregular Panels, Samuel P. Jordan

All Faculty Scholarship

This article explores a common but essentially unexplored feature of appellate decision-making: decisions by irregular panels. Decisions in the federal courts of appeals are usually reached by panels of three statutorily authorized judges. But appellate panels are often irregular in practice, either because an authorized judge becomes unavailable or because an unauthorized judge is assigned as a panel member. The traditional approach, supported by both statute and case law, has been to accept the former while rejecting the latter. When considered functionally, however, decisions by quorum are at least as problematic as those by panels with unauthorized members. The absence …

Confusion And Unpredictability In Shareholder Derivative Litigation: The Delaware Courts' Response To Recent Corporate Scandals, Ann M. Scarlett

All Faculty Scholarship

The Delaware courts responded to the recent wave of corporate scandals, exemplified by Enron and WorldCom, by changing their approach to shareholder derivative litigation. This Article analyzes the Delaware courts' response to these scandals and concludes that the courts have created doctrinal confusion and introduced unpredictability into derivative litigation. This Article also analyzes the future negative consequences for shareholders, corporations, directors, investors, and other litigants. Finally, this Article proposes improvements for derivative litigation that may alleviate the confusion and unpredictability created by the Delaware courts' response to the recent scandals.

Not Hearing History: A Critique Of Chief Justice Robert’S Reinterpretation Of Brown, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

In the principal opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Chief Justice Roberts invoked Brown v. Board of Education to bolster his view that the United States Constitution forbids the use of virtually all racial classifications. In its closing paragraphs, the plurality opinion claimed that the NAACP attorneys in Brown subscribed to an anticlassification view of the Constitution and that the Court adopted that view. Far from hearing history, the Chief Justice’s opinion sought to rewrite it. The discussion ignored the historic context in which Brown was argued and based its argument on extracting …

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em: A Pragmatic Approach To Nonprecedential Opinions In The Federal Appellate Courts, Amy E. Sloan

All Faculty Scholarship

For many years, judges and academics have debated the pros and cons of non-precedential judicial opinions in the federal appellate courts. Although the utility, necessity, and advisability of non-precedential opinions remain interesting issues to debate, at this point they are somewhat beside the point. Academics have lost the debate on non-precedential opinions. Judges control whether non-precedential opinions are permissible, and judges are not going to give them up anytime soon.

So, as the saying goes, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Rather than continue to debate the merits of non-precedential opinions, the better course of action is to find …

What's Left Standing? Feca Citizen Suits And The Battle For Judicial Review, Kimberly L. Wehle

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses standing to sue the FEC with two principal objectives. First, it attempts to frame the doctrinal inconsistencies between Lujan and Akins that have given rise to ongoing FECA standing litigation and concludes that the Supreme Court should acknowledge its repudiation of Lujan in cases seeking election-related information. Second, it explores the question whether courts may be statutorily required to consider citizen challenges to FEC enforcement actions as a matter of justiciability theory in the first instance, and concludes that courts should turn to the oft-overlooked Akins decision in lieu of Lujan in reviewing suits brought under citizen-suit …

A Report On Chicago's Felony Courts: Executive Summary (Chicago Appleseed Fund For Justice Criminal Justice Project, December 2007) (Member Of Advisory Board), Daniel T. Coyne

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Report On Chicago's Felony Courts (Chicago Appleseed Fund For Justice Criminal Justice Project, December 2007) (Member Of Advisory Board)., Daniel T. Coyne

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Early Panel Announcement, Settlement And Adjudication, Samuel P. Jordan

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal appellate courts have significant discretion to set the internal policies that govern the appeals process, and they have used that discretion to institute policies designed to combat increasing caseloads. This Article takes a close look at one such policy: early announcement of panel composition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In stark contrast to every other circuit, the D.C. Circuit announces panel composition to litigants in civil appeals well in advance of oral argument, and it does so at least in part to encourage settlement and control the court's workload. This Article concludes that although there are indications …

Deliberative Dilemmas: A Critique Of Deliberation Day From The Perspective Of Election Law, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

My paper deals with two subject areas - deliberative democracy theory and election law - that have had surprisingly little contact with another. My paper tries to remedy this lacuna by looking at how the two fields intersect and can contribute to the understanding of one another. In particular, I look in detail at a particularly prominent proposal by two political theorists, Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin's Deliberation Day, and how the aims of that proposal might be frustrated by the present structure of American election law. I argue that because they fail to take into account certain structural features …

Amicus Briefs, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Kramer's Popular Constitutionalism: A Quick Normative Assessment, Sarah K. Harding

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Bringing Jury Instructions Into The Twenty-First Century, Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cyberjuries: A New Role As Online Mock Juries, Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Secrecy In Litigation (Symposium Editor), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice Stevens, The Peremptory Challenge, And The Jury (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Equality Paradise: Paradoxes Of The Law's Power To Advance Equality, Marcia L. Mccormick

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper, written for Texas Wesleyan Law School's Gloucester Conference, ¿Too Pure an Air: Law and the Quest for Freedom, Justice, and Equality,¿ is a brief exploration of a broader project. Every civil rights movement must struggle with how to allocate scarce resources to accomplish the broadest change possible. This paper compares the legal and political strategies of the Black rights movement and the women's rights movement in the United States, comparing both the strategy choices and the results. These two movement followed essentially the same strategies. Where they have attained success and where each has failed demonstrates the limits …

An Honest Approach To Plea Bargaining, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author argues that differential sentencing of criminal defendants who plead guilty and those who go to trial is, primarily, a punishment for the defendant exercising the right to trial. The proposed solution requires an analysis of the differential sentencing motivation in light of the benefit to society and the drawbacks inherent in the plea bargaining system.

Deterrence And Implied Limits On Arbitral Power, Michael A. Scodro

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Medical Malpractice Debate: The Jury As Scapegoat (Symposium), Nancy S. Marder

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Market For Justice, The "Litigation Explosion," And The "Verdict Bubble": A Closer Look At Vanishing Trials, Frederic N. Smalkin, Frederic N.C. Smalkin

All Faculty Scholarship

Recently, a respected jurist has lamented the declining number of federal jury trials. Chief Judge William Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, writing in the Federal Lawyer, pointed out that jury trials in federal civil cases declined 26% in the decade between 1989 and 1999, which he attributed to four factors: the district court judiciary's loss of focus on the core function of trying jury cases; the business community's loss of interest in jury adjudication (opting out of the legal system altogether in favor of arbitration); Congress's marginalizing the district court judiciary; and the …