Courts Commons^™

Do Bankruptcy Judges Belong In Chambers? Rethinking Inherent Civil Contempt Power In Bankruptcy, Abigail B. Willie

Faculty Articles

The bankruptcy court is the face of the federal judiciary to much of the American public. Almost as many cases are filed in bankruptcy courts every year as are filed in the federal district courts and circuit courts combined. And in each bankruptcy case, there are often dozens or more affected parties. As such, it is critical that the public has confidence in the role of the bankruptcy court and its judges. Yet, since the creation of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, the non-Article III bankruptcy system has faced seemingly never-ending challenges to subject matter jurisdiction in the bankruptcy context …

Judging Judiciaries: How Sticky Defaults, Status Quo Bias, And The Sovereign Prerogative Influence The Perceived Legitimacy Of The New International Commercial Courts, S. I. Strong

Faculty Articles

Forum shopping is routinely criticized as contrary to procedural justice. However, recent years have seen an increasing number of jurisdictions engaged in the process of forum selling, in which countries actively seek to bring lucrative litigation business to their national judicial systems. One of the most common types of forum selling involves the creation of new international commercial courts designed to increase a nation’s competitiveness in the global litigation market.

Most studies of the new international commercial courts have focused on how procedural innovations adopted by different courts are likely to affect party choice. While useful, these analyses assume that …

Expertise, Ideology, And Dissent, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Jonathan R. Nash, Jason Rantanen

Faculty Articles

Part I sketches a theory of dissent, explaining how voting and opinion-writing behavior on a multi-member court, such as a federal court of appeals, is a function of both a judge's preferences, as well as costs, including the relational disruption that comes from disagreeing with colleagues.

Part II provides background on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as a survey of prior studies of decision-making on the court and explanations of those studies' limitations.

Part III describes our methodology, including the novel dataset we built for the purpose of this study.

Part IV conducts a …

Everything New Is Old Again: The Coming Metaverse, Platforms As Premises, And Addressing Harms That Occur Behind The Veil Of Scale, Lara Putnam, Jena Martin

Faculty Articles

Increasingly, social media companies have engaged in the creation, development, and deployment of "worlds" within a virtual reality setting, leading to significant interactions among users within these engineered spaces. However, this expansion has also been accompanied by harms. While some harms are unique to immersive reality technology, many mirror harms that occur in the analog environment, including fraud, theft, verbal abuse, and child sexual exploitation. Others replicate harms that have already exploded in non-immersive online spaces, including image-based sexual exploitation, cyberstalking, and invasion of privacy. Unfortunately, the architecture and infrastructure of these spaces has created what we coin here to …

Moral Panic And The First Amendment, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Debates over free speech in the United States frequently see advocates of strong, broad protections at odds with those who argue that unfettered free speech tends to harm society's most vulnerable. Free speech advocates invoke the marketplace of ideas and argue that the antidote to false or harmful speech is more speech. In response, critics contend that speech itself causes harm and chills counter-speech effectively excluding marginalized groups, including women and LGBTQ people, from discourse altogether. These critics support limitations on robust free speech doctrine targeting speech that harms marginalized communities.

This Article identifies a significant wrinkle in this narrative: …

Against "The Huddleston Test", Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Many courts—mostly federal, but also some state courts—are misapplying the United States Supreme Court's decision in the 1988 case United States v. Huddleston. These courts have used a single paragraph of dicta from the Huddleston opinion to craft multipart checklist-type "tests" that displace the single requirement of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or corresponding state rules). This displacement risks the admission of other acts evidence without determining whether the evidence is relevant for a non-character purpose by means of inferences that do not involve character. These Huddleston tests thus undermine Rule 404(b)'s prohibition that other acts evidence …

The Difference A Da Makes, Victoria M. Smiegocki, Shem Vinton, Pamela R. Metzger

Faculty Articles

During his 2018 campaign to become Dallas County District Attorney, John Creuzot promised to decline prosecution of low-level marijuana misdemeanors. After his election, District Attorney Creuzot (DA Creuzot) honored this campaign promise, issuing policies designed to radically reduce misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions. Analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, the authors describe police enforcement changes associated with the Dallas County District Attorney's Office's (DAO) marijuana prosecution policies. The authors also explore how the

DAO's Intake Unit successfully implemented and enforced these marijuana prosecution policies.

The authors show that DA Creuzot's policies were associated with a significant decrease in marijuana misdemeanor arrests and an …

Partisan Panel Composition And Reliance On Earlier Opinions In The Circuit Courts, Stuart M. Benjamin, Byungkoo Kim, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

Does the partisan composition of three-judge panels affect how earlier opinions are treated and thus how the law develops? Using a novel data set of Shepard’s treatments for all cases decided in the U.S. courts of appeals from 1974 to 2017, we investigate three different versions of this question. First, are panels composed of three Democratic (Republican) appointees more likely to follow opinions decided by panels of three Democratic (Republican) appointees than are panels composed of three Republican (Democratic) appointees? Second, does the presence of a single out-party judge change how a panel relies on earlier decisions compared to what …

When Is Legal Methodology Binding?, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Common-law interpretive methodologies are mostly nonbinding, but some interpretive methodologies are seen as binding precedent. This Article offers an explanation for this state of affairs. Whereas the extant scholarship on common-law interpretive methodologies offers descriptive accounts (often assuming that common-law methodologies are per se nonbinding) and normative analysis, this Article fills a gap in the literature by providing a realist explanation for the legal landscape of binding interpretive methodologies. It identifies whether a methodology is rule-like, and whether it increases judicial legitimacy and/or court power as “pull factors”—that is, incentives that might attract judges to recognize interpretive methodologies as binding. …

Derailing Democracy, Shrinking Responsibility: The New Election Law Landscape, Cory Conley, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

In democracy jurisprudence, the Roberts Court wears two faces. Its most recent duo of cases illustrates the inconsistency. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court ruled that even grossly partisan gerrymanders are nonjusticiable in federal courts. Yet, in Moore v. Harper, the Court rejected granting unreviewable authority to state lawmakers to regulate federal elections—for now. This combination of rulings is not ideological moderation or judicial restraint, as the Court claims. These recent cases are emblematic of broader unpredictability and selectivity in election law. The assertions of judicial humility in Rucho stand in stark contrast to the bald activism …

Institutional Design And The Predictability Of Judicial Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Patrick Leslie, Zoë Robinson

Faculty Articles

Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and …

From Margins To Center: Elevating The Voices Of Disadvantaged Families In Child Welfare, Jerron R. Wheeler

Faculty Articles

This essay sheds light on the systemic challenges faced by indigent, minority families within the child welfare system, using personal experiences from my time as a student at the University of Florida Levin College of Law as a lens. This essay aims to highlight the intersection of poverty, race, and the child welfare system, showing how these factors can hinder parents' ability to reunite with their children despite their best efforts. The essay seeks to underscore the urgent need for a more nuanced, multidisciplinary approach to child welfare advocacy that includes legal professionals, social workers, and health professionals working collaboratively …

Altered Stakes: Reimagining The Amount-In-Controversy Requirement, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

Which state-law cases should Congress allow into federal court? Congress's answer has always been "only the big ones." This article revisits the choice to limit diversity jurisdiction to higher-value cases and critically examines how Congress has approached setting the amount threshold. It surveys alternate ways Congress could use case value to sort which cases make it into the diversity docket. We explore lotteries, auctioning access to the highest bidder, setting an amount in controversy maximum rather than the current minimum, pegging the jurisdictional amount to the minimum wage or the cost of a hamburger, employing relative measures that use multiples …

State Constitutional Prohibitions Of Slavery And Involuntary Servitude, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In recent years, the Thirteenth Amendment has drawn sustained criticism for its “Punishment Clause,” which exempts those duly convicted of criminal offenses from the Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude. Citing the Punishment Clause, courts have struck down challenges by those sentenced to forced labor, arguing that such involuntary servitude is explicitly permitted for those convicted of crimes. Recent criticism draws on concerns over mass incarceration and expansive forced labor practices—urging that the Thirteenth Amendment be revised to remove the Punishment Clause.

Prompted by increased attention to and criticism of the Punishment Clause, some states have taken matters into …

Consumer Privacy And The Dobbs Disruption, Mason R. Clark

Faculty Articles

The right to reproductive privacy is under attack in the United States, and it is losing ground. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court's 2022 decision that overruled Roe v. Wade's constitutional protection of abortion and jeopardized privacy rights by proxy, reflects this losing posture. Scholarship in reproductive privacy varyingly critiques federal privacy initiatives, evaluates regulatory interventions, and proposes civil rights frameworks in response to Dobbs. This Article, however, pinpoints how Dobbs created a gaping hole in state consumer privacy laws even as they propagated across the United States. Currently, there are no state consumer privacy laws that …

When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner: Justice In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence (Book Review), Stacy Fowler

Faculty Articles

In When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, former federal judge Katherine Forrest raises concerns over the pervasive use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the American justice system to produce risks and need assessments (RNA) regarding the probability of recidivism for citizens charged with a crime. Forrest’s argument centers on AI’s primary focus on utilitarian outcomes when assessing liberty for individual citizens. This approach leads Forrest to the conclusion that in its current form, AI is “ill-suited to the criminal justice context.” Forrest contends that AI should instead be programmed to focus on John Rawl’ 'concept of justice as …

Originalism And The Meaning Of "Twenty Dollars", Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Originalism claims to provide answers, or at least assistance, for those hoping to interpret a Constitution filled with wide-ranging, morally loaded terminology. Originalists claim that looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will constrain interpreters, maintain consistency and predictability in judicial decisions, and is faithful to ideals like democratic legitimacy. This essay responds with the inevitable, tough question: whether originalism can tell interpreters what the Seventh Amendment's reference to "twenty dollars" means--both as a matter of original meaning and for interpreters today.

While this appears to be an easy question, I demonstrate that rather than telling modern legal …

Vested Patents And Equal Justice,, Adam J. Macleod

Faculty Articles

In a time of renewed interest in equal justice, the vested patent right may be timely again. Vested patent rights helped marginalized Americans to secure equal justice earlier in American history. And they helped to make sense of the law. Vested patent rights can perform those tasks again today.

The concept of vested rights render patent law coherent. And it explains patent law 's interactions with other areas of law, such as property, administrative, and constitutional law. The vested rights doctrine also can serve the requirements of equal justice, as it has several times in American history. Vested rights secure …

"Grossly Negligent Utilities," "Unimaginable Property Damage" And The Scope Of Liability Insurers' Duty To Indemnify Subrogated Property Insurers - Probative And Empirical Inferences From Courts' Divided Subrogation And Indemnification Decision, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Each year, extreme weather, natural disasters and allegedly "grossly negligent" investor-owned utilities concurrently destroy property, persons and lives. In the wake, billions of dollars are lost. Given utilities' general immunity under the judicially created filed-rate or filed-tariff doctrine, residential and commercial owners are precluded from filing ordinary negligence actions against utilities. Thus, many injured consumers try to settle their property-loss claims with their insurers. Some property insurers satisfy the "make-whole" doctrine and cover all losses. Most insurers, however, refuse to settle any claim. Or, they partially compensate the insureds. Yet, an overwhelming majority of property insurers are increasingly filing subrogation …

Taking Corrigibility Seriously, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

This article argues that the Supreme Court's creation of a category of "irreparably corrupt" juveniles is not only an epistemological mistake but also a tactical mistake which has undermined the Court's express desire that only in the "rarest" of cases will juveniles be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Lawyerless Law Development, Colleen Shanahan, Jessica Steinberg, Alyx Mark, Anna Carpenter

Faculty Articles

State civil courts are the object of growing scholarly attention converging from two directions: rapidly expanding research regarding lawyerless state civil trial courts, and an increasing volume of voices calling for state supreme courts to serve as a balm for American democracy’s wounds. The challenges of lawyerless trial courts and the potential of state supreme courts converge when considering how law develops in state civil courts. We and others have asserted that law development is not happening in lawyerless courts, at least not in the way that American legal scholars conventionally understand law development. This Essay explores the core theoretical …

Discovering Ebay's Impact On Copyright Injunctions Through Empirical Evidence, Matthew Sag, Pamela Samuelson

Faculty Articles

This Article reports on new empirical evidence discrediting the widely held view that judges have resisted applying the Supreme Court’s teachings in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. about injunctive relief in copyright cases. That 2006 patent law decision ruled that courts should not automatically issue injunctions upon a finding of infringement; instead, plaintiffs must prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. eBay had a seismic impact on patent litigation and greatly reduced the threat that small infringements could be leveraged into billion-dollar settlements. Yet prior empirical work, at least one major copyright law treatise, and many articles assert that eBay had …

101 Lawyers: Attorney Appearances In Twitter V. Musk, Andrew K. Jennings

Faculty Articles

In summer 2022, Twitter sued Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, in Delaware’s Court of Chancery over his refusal to close his agreed-to $44 billion acquisition of the social-media company. Twitter v. Musk had the makings of corporate law’s trial of the century. Leading law firms represented Twitter, Musk, and third parties in a dispute with enormous financial, social, and political implications. In the lead up to trial, however, Musk relented and closed the deal. The corporate trial of the century was a bust, over almost as soon as it began.

But in the meantime, in Twitter’s eighty-six days …

Bad Faith Prosecution, Ann Woolhandler, Jonathan R. Nash, Michael G. Collins

Faculty Articles

There is no shortage of claims by parties that their prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary. In our increasingly polarized society, such claims are more common than ever. Donald Trump campaigned on promises to lock up Hillary Clinton for her handling of State Department-related emails, but he subsequently complained that the special counsel's investigation of his campaign's alleged contacts with Russian operatives was a politically motivated witch hunt. Kenneth Starr's pursuit of investigations of Bill Clinton evoked similar arguments of political motivation.

The advent of "progressive" prosecutors will no doubt increase claims of bad faith prosecution, …

The Market-Essential Role Of Corporate Climate Disclosure, George S. Georgiev

Faculty Articles

This Article focuses on capital market efficiency as an often-downplayed legal rationale for mandating corporate climate disclosure, and explores it alongside the notion of investor demand, which has assumed a prominent and, increasingly, contested role in debates on climate disclosure. Because market efficiency (encompassing both securities price accuracy and overall capital market allocative efficiency) is generally unobservable, many commentators have instead emphasized the highly visible investor demand for climate-related disclosure as evidenced by shareholder proposals, voting behavior, stewardship policies, and public statements. Unfortunately, investor demand can be disputed, fairly or unfairly, because investor preferences are heterogeneous, dynamic, and difficult to …

Contract Law Should Be Faith Neutral: Reverse Entanglement Would Be Stranglement For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The first section of this Article will outline the ways in which communities—religious and other groups, including the LGBTQ+ community—have used and continue to use private law to achieve meaningful dispute resolution. By diminishing the role of civil courts to review arbitrations, parties may tailor their resolutions to prioritize community values that may be misaligned with secular society. Outside of historical religious usage, private law offers a field ripe for jurisprudential growth. Through alternative dispute resolution, affinity-based minority groups can pave an avenue towards justice which accurately reflects the unique values of their lived experiences.

The second section will provide …

One Step Backward: The Ninth Circuit's Unfortunate Rule 404(B) Decision In United States V. Lague, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

The federal courts' current approach to character evidence is widely recognized as problematic. Although Rule 404(b)(1) categorically prohibits the use of character evidence, Rule 404(b)(2) presents a list of examples of permitted purposes that has tempted courts to view the admission of other-acts evidence as proper so long as the evidence is merely relevant to a non-character purpose. Additionally, courts have misconstrued the inclusive structure of Rule 404(b) as creating a presumption

in favor of admissibility. Recent efforts to correct this mistakenly permissive view include decisions by several of the federal circuit courts of appeals recognizing that Rule 404(b) requires …

Originalism And The Inseparability Of Decision Procedures From Interpretive Standards, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In his article, Originalism: Standard and Procedure, Professor Stephen E. Sachs describes a never-ending debate between originalism's advocates and critics. Originalists argue that certain historical facts determine the Constitution's meaning. But determining these facts is difficult, if not impossible for judges, attorneys, and the public. Sachs seeks to rise above this debate, arguing that the legal community should not expect originalism to offer a procedure for interpreting the Constitution. Instead, the legal community should treat originalism as a

standard to judge interpretations.

This Article takes issue with this approach. Originalism is not like other instances in law where statutes or …

The Jury Veto, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

While the American civic religion is to be distrustful of government, feelings of discontent regarding our systems of criminal investigation and adjudication feel historic. And while those systems are capable of great carnage en route, the endgame is, ultimately, criminal punishment. Yet before punishment can be imposed, every prosecution—and therefore every defendant—is meant to encounter a potential “circuit breaker”: the jury. I propose that we re-inject this democratic voice into our criminal adjudications, but through an entirely novel structure: the defendant (and perhaps the prosecutor) would have the choice of invoking a jury empowered to ‘veto’ any judicial sentence. By …

The Roberts Court And Class Litigation: Revolution, Evolution, And Work To Be Done, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Since 2005, when John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice, there have been startling changes to the world of class actions. Jurisdictionally, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 fundamentally reconfigured the allocation of class litigation between federal and state courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the federal class action provision, has been amended three times in the Roberts years, once in a meaningful way. Our focus, however, is on what the Roberts Court has done in the class action world through its caselaw. On that score, we have a remarkable corpus. From Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. …