Courts Commons^™

Corruption In Our Courts: What It Looks Like And Where It Is Hidden, Stratos Pahis

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Manufacturers' Liability For Defective Product Designs: The Triumph Of Risk-Utility, Aaron D. Twerski, James A. Henderson, Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Circumspect Look At Problem-Solving Courts, Richard C. Boldt

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Justice On Appeal In Criminal Cases: A Twentieth-Century Perspective, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

Criminal appeals was a hot topic in the 1970s, reflecting the politics of the Great Society and the development of the constitutional requirements of due process. There was then widespread agreement that the function of the criminal appeal was to assure that the appropriate judges were giving visible attention to all convictions to assure that they were justified. This paper will pose the question: what has become of that vision of a former generation?

Foreign Officials And Sovereign Immunity In U.S. Courts, Curtis A. Bradley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Competition In The Courtroom: When Does Expert Testimony Improve Jurors’ Decisions?, Cheryl Boudreau, Mathew D. Mccubbins

Faculty Scholarship

Many scholars lament the increasing complexity of jury trials and question whether the testimony of competing experts helps unsophisticated jurors to make informed decisions. In this article, we analyze experimentally the effects that the testimony of competing experts has on (1) sophisticated versus unsophisticated subjects' decisions and (2) subjects' deci- sions on difficult versus easy problems. Our results demonstrate that competing expert testimony, by itself, does not help unsophisticated subjects to behave as though they are sophisticated, nor does it help subjects make comparable decisions on difficult and easy problems. When we impose additional institutions (such as penalties for lying …

Judicial Independence In Excess: Reviving The Judicial Duty Of The Supreme Court, Paul D. Carrington, Roger C. Cramton

Faculty Scholarship

Independence from extrinsic influence is, we know, indispensable to public trust in the integrity of professional judges who share the duty to decide cases according to preexisting law. But such independence is less appropriate for those expected to make new law to govern future events. Indeed, in a democratic government those who make new law are expected to be accountable to their constituents, not independent of their interests and unresponsive to their desires. The Supreme Court of the United States has in the last century largely forsaken responsibility for the homely task of deciding cases in accord with preexisting law …

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Future Of Appellate Sentencing Review: Booker In The States, The Symposium: Criminal Appeals: Sentencing Appeals, John F. Pfaff

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, I look at the theoretical implications of the United States Supreme Court‘s recent contradictory sentencing cases, and I then examine how they are playing out in practice at the state level. Though Booker purports to follow, not repudiate, Blakely, its view of the role of appellate courts is wholly inconsistent with Blakely‘s view. Many states have sidestepped this contradiction by simply following Blakely and ignoring the option laid out in Booker. But at least three states have chosen to pass through the door opened by Booker. Their experiences allow us to examine the implications of Booker and …

Constitution And The Laws Of War During The Civil War, The Federal Courts, Practice & Procedure, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This Article uncovers the forgotten complex of relationships between the U.S. Constitution, citizenship and the laws of war. The Supreme Court today believes that both noncitizens and citizens who are military enemies in a congressionally-authorized war are entitled to judicially-enforceable rights under the Constitution. The older view was that the U.S. government’s military actions against noncitizen enemies were not limited by the Constitution, but only by the international laws of war. On the other hand, in the antebellum period, the prevailing view was U.S. citizenship should carry with it protection from ever being treated as a military enemy under the …

Negligence Per Se And Res Ipsa Loquitur: Kissing Cousins, Aaron D. Twerski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reforming Family Court: Getting It Right Between Rhetoric And Reality, Jane M. Spinak

Faculty Scholarship

What do we say about the reform work we do, and to what degree is what we say accurate? How does the way in which we talk about family court reform implicate our analysis of what we are achieving? How does our place or role within the system affect our perceptions of reform? What limits our willingness and ability to apply rigorous evaluative techniques to determine whether we are reaching our goals? And if we are failing, can we acknowledge failure and learn from it? Answering these questions may lead to a better understanding of why family court reform is …

Facial And As-Applied Challenges Under The Roberts Court, Gillian E. Metzger

Faculty Scholarship

One recurring theme of the Roberts Court's jurisprudence to date is its resistance to facial constitutional challenges and preference for as-applied litigation. On a number of occasions the Court has rejected facial constitutional challenges while reserving the possibility that narrower as-applied claims might succeed. According to the Court, such as-applied claims are "the basic building blocks of constitutional adjudication." This preference for as-applied over facial challenges has surfaced with some frequency, across terms and in contexts involving different constitutional rights, at times garnering support from all the Justices. Moreover, the Roberts Court has advocated the as-applied approach in contexts in …

The Solicitor General As Mediator Between Court And Agency, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Andean Tribunal Of Justice And Its Interlocutors: Understanding Preliminary Reference Patterns In The Andean Community, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter

Faculty Scholarship

In the European Union, national courts have been key intermediaries in helping to bolster and expand the authority of the European Court of Justice through its preliminary reference mechanism. This article analyzes the role of national judges in the Andean Community, a regional legal system whose judicial institution - the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) - was modeled directly on its European predecessor. Our analysis is based on an original coding of every publically available national court referral to the ATJ from 1987 to 2007 and interviews with over forty participants in the Andean legal system. We find that the …

Treaties As "Part Of Our Law", Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Maritime Delimitation In The Black Sea (Romania V. Ukraine), Coalter G. Lathrop

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Ounce Of Prevention: Solving Some Unforeseen Problems With The Proposed Amendments To Rule 56 And The Federal Summary Judgment Process, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Civil Rules Advisory Committee has recently proposed the most significant revisions to Rule 56 since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted seventy years ago. Although the stated goal of the proposed amendments is laudable - "to improve the procedures for making and opposing summary-judgment motions, and to facilitate the judge's work in resolving them" - this Essay in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy identifies some unanticipated problems with the proposed text. Contrary to the Advisory Committee's intent, the proposed text may inadvertently make substantial changes to the summary-judgment standard and the burdens on litigants at the …

Should Securities Industry Self-Regulatory Organizations Be Considered Government Agencies?, Roberta S. Karmel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Iowa Professors Of Law And History, Frederick Adams, Victoria Bissell Brown, Patricia Cain, Lois Cox, Ann Laquer Estin, Sally Frank, Elizabeth Heineman, Linda K. Kerber, Karen Leroux, Suzanne J. Levitt, Jean Love, Linda A. Mcguire, Kevin Mumford, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Sarah J. Purcell, Margaret Raymond, Mark E. Schantz, Johanna Schoen, Leslie A. Schwalm, Mark Sidel, Peggie Smith, Maura Irene Strassberg, Shelton Stromquist

Faculty Scholarship

This case calls upon the State of Iowa to reaffirm its historic commitment to protecting the equality and individual liberties of all of its citizens, including its lesbian and gay male citizens. It requires this Court to interpret Iowa’s unique constitution with due respect for both text and tradition. The case must be analyzed against the backdrop of Iowa’s leadership and courage in the areas of civil rights and family law, and the willingness of its judiciary to uphold constitutional mandates in the face of efforts to legislate prejudice and discrimination.

Plaintiff-Appellees seek nothing more than to share in the …

Preemption And Federal Common Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Which States Have The Best (And Worst) High Courts?, Mitu Gulati, Stephen J. Choi, Eric A. Posner

Faculty Scholarship

This paper ranks the high courts of the fifty states, based on their performance during the years 1998-2000, along three dimensions: opinion quality (or influence as measured by out-of-state citations), independence (or non-partisanship), and productivity (opinions written). We also discuss ways of aggregating these measures. California and Delaware had the most influential courts; Georgia and Mississippi had the most productive courts; and Rhode Island and New York had the most independent courts. If equal weight is given to each measure, then the top five states were: California, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, and Ohio. We compare our approach and results with …

Taking Liberties: The Personal Jurisdiction Of Military Commissions, Madeline Morris

Faculty Scholarship

On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda operatives attacked civilian and military targets on US territory, causing thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of economic loss. The next day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1368 characterizing the attack by Al Qaeda as a "threat to international peace and security" and recognizing the right of states to use armed force in self defense.

Nothing But The Truth? Experiments On Adversarial Competition, Expert Testimony, And Decision Making, Cheryl Boudreau, Mathew D. Mccubbins

Faculty Scholarship

Many scholars debate whether a competition between experts in legal, political, or economic contexts elicits truthful information and, in turn, enables people to make informed decisions. Thus, we analyze experimentally the conditions under which competition between experts induces the experts to make truthful statements and enables jurors listening to these statements to improve their decisions. Our results demonstrate that, contrary to game theoretic predictions and contrary to critics of our adversarial legal system, competition induces enough truth telling to allow jurors to improve their decisions. Then, when we impose additional institutions (such as penalties for lying or the threat of …

The Virtue Of Judicial Statesmanship, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Some of America’s most important judges have emphasized or embodied the practice of judicial statesmanship. Yet from the examples they set, it is not particularly clear what judicial statesmanship is or why it matters. In this Article, I conceptualize the elusive phenomenon of judicial statesmanship, and I defend statesmanship as a core, if underappreciated, dimension of judicial role. I argue that judicial statesmanship defines a virtue in the role of a judge. Statesmanship charges judges with approaching cases so as to facilitate the capacity of the legal system to legitimate itself—over the long run and with respect to the nation …

Voices Of American Law: Us Supreme Court Cases Meet The 21st Century, Lauren M. Collins

Faculty Scholarship

reviewing Voices of American Law documentary series(Thomas B. Metzloff & Sarah Wood producers)

The Verdict On Juries, Neil Vidmar, Valerie P. Hans

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Overseers Or "The Deciders" – The Courts In Administrative Law, Peter L. Strauss

Faculty Scholarship

For the second time in a short period, Professors Miles and Sunstein have brought powerful tools of statistical analysis and diligent coding of circuit court of appeals opinions together to demonstrate what the Realists long ago taught us to suspect, that significant elements of judging can be explained in terms of the jurist's political world view – that the tension between law and politics is alive in judicial work as elsewhere and that it is only an aspiration to seek a world of laws and not of men. Elements of their work, though, appear as if in criticism of contemporary …

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem Article And Essay, Nicholas J. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Gun control in the United States generally has meant some type of supply regulation. Supply restrictions ranging from one-gun-a-month schemes to flat gun bans cannot work without a willingness and ability to reduce total inventory to levels approaching zero ("the supply-side ideal"). This is an impossible feat in a country that already has 300 million guns tightly held by people who think they are uniquely important tools. The average defiance ratio in places that have attempted gun confiscation and registration is 2.6 illegal guns for every legal one. In many countries defiance is far higher. None of those countries has …