Courts Commons^™

Judicial Triage: Reflections On The Debate Over Unpublished Opinions, Mitu Gulati, David C. Vladeck

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Medellin V. Dretke: Federalism And International Law, Curtis A. Bradley, Lori Fisler Damrosch, Martin Flaherty

Faculty Scholarship

This is an edited version of a debate held at Columbia Law School on February 21, 2005.

Congress's Power To Enforce Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Lessons From Federal Remedies The Framers Enacted , Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Robert Kaczorowski argues for an expansive originalist interpretation of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the Civil War Congress actually exercised, and the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld plenary Congressional power to enforce the constitutional rights of slaveholders. After the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment copied the antebellum statutes and exercised plenary power to enforce the constitutional rights of all American citizens when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then incorporated the Act into the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thereby exercised the plenary power the Rehnquist Court claims the …

Between Dialogue And Decree: International Review Of National Courts, Robert B. Ahdieh

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen dramatic growth in the number of international tribunals at work across the globe, from the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Claims in Switzerland and the International Criminal Court. With this development has come both increased opportunity for interaction between national and international courts and increased occasion for conflict. Such friction was evident in the recent decision in Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, in which an arbitral panel constituted under the North American Free Trade Agreement found …

Why Were Perry Mason's Clients Always Innocent? The Criminal Lawyer's Moral Dilemma - The Criminal Defendant Who Tells His Lawyer He Is Guilty, Randolph Braccialarghe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Theater In The Courtroom, The Chicago Conspiracy Trial, Pnina Lahav

Faculty Scholarship

The Chicago Conspiracy Trial (otherwise known as the Chicago Seven Trial) is a Rorschach test of American society in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Following the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968, leaders of the antiwar movement, the counterculture and the Black Panthers were put on trial for a "conspiracy to cross state lines with intent to incite a riot." The trial has been too easily dismissed as a circus, not worthy of legal attention, when in fact it does contain important legal insights. This paper suggests that the theory of the theater provides the key …

How Like A Winter? The Plight Of Absent Class Members Denied Adequate Representation, Susan P. Koniak

Faculty Scholarship

Class actions assume absent class members. ² Notices in class actions tell class members that they need not show up in the courthouse, although they may if they choose.³ Class members are told that class counsel and the named class representatives will look out for them, although if they choose to hire their own lawyer, she may appear on their behalf.⁴ They are also routinely told that once the decision in the class action becomes final they will be bound by it, losing any and all right to protest the resolution of their claims by the class action …

A Constitution For Judicial Lawmaking, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When courts decide cases, the decisions make law because they become precedent that binds future courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. This article argues that some principles governing judicial lawmaking are functionally constitutional principles because they go to the validity of a particular attempt at judicial lawmaking (just as the constitutional principles governing legislative lawmaking determine the validity of lawmaking by legislatures). Because even poorly reasoned judicial decisions can still be effective lawmaking acts, it is important to distinguish between constitutional and non-constitutional principles and arguments. While a non-constitutional principle can be a basis for examining the wisdom or …

A Tournament Of Judges?, Stephen Choi, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

We suggest a Tournament of Judges where the reward to the winner is elevation to the Supreme Court. Politics (and ideology) surely has a role to play in the selection of justices. However, the present level of partisan bickering has resulted in delays in judicial appointments as well as undermined the public's confidence in the objectivity of justices selected through such a process. More significantly, much of the politicking is not transparent, often obscured with statements on a particular candidate's "merit"- casting a taint on all those who make their way through the judicial nomination process. We argue that the …

The Rehnquist Court’S Two Federalisms, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

For And Against Marriage: A Revision., Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Labor And Employment Decisions: 2002-2003 Term, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

This article summarizes U.S. Supreme Court cases from the October 2002 term that related directly or indirectly to labor or employment law or have implications for labor and employment practitioners. Of particular interest are the University of Michigan affirmative action cases' and the Texas criminal sodomy case. ² Although not nominally "labor and employment" cases, these cases will profoundly affect labor and employment issues. Lawrence v. Texas has already altered the lenses through which society views homosexuality and altered public discourse related to homosexuality and same-sex relationships. ³ The reasoning of the Court shows how far issues of sexuality have …

Archetypal Trials And The Management Of Dissent: Some Insights From Marketing Theory, Pnina Lahav

Faculty Scholarship

Recent marketing theory uses the Jungian concept of the archetype to design strategies for the improvement of product selling. Mark and Pearson propose that archetypes such as the ruler, the hero, the outlaw, and the sage are useful in promoting a product. This article suggests that the concept of archetypes as well as myths such as the Prometheus myth and the myth of the expulsion from Paradise, when combined with the insights offered by Mark and Pearson, may help in understanding the management of trials of dissent as well. The article presents seven motifs that recur in trials of dissent …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Hearing Voices: Speaker Identification In Court, Lawrence Solan, Peter Tiersma

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Accomplishing The Purposes Of Sentencing–The Role Of The Courts And The Commission, Aaron J. Rappaport

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Theorizing Community Justice Through Community Courts, Jeffery Fagan, Victoria Malkin

Faculty Scholarship

Community justice practitioners argue that the justice system has long ignored its biggest clients-citizens and neighborhoods that suffer the everyday consequences of high crime levels. One response from legal elites has been a package of court innovations and new practices known as "community justice," part of a broader appeal to "community" and "partnership" common now in modern discourse on crime control. This concept incorporates several contemporary visions and expressions of justice within the popular and legal literatures: problem-solving courts (such as drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, gun courts, and, of course, juvenile courts); the inclusion of victims …

Criminal Defenders And Community Justice: The Drug Court Example, William H. Simon

Faculty Scholarship

The Community Justice idea and its core institution – the Community Court – is an ambitious innovation intended to generate new solutions and practices. It thus inevitably calls for adaptation of the established roles associated with the court system, and especially the criminal justice system. It asks practitioners to learn new skills, to accept new conventions, and to participate in the elaboration of a rapidly evolving experiment.

It is thus not surprising that many lawyers are anxious about the system. It remains an interesting question, however, whether their anxiety represents something more than the discomfort that change and challenge typically …

The Political (Science) Context Of Judging, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Courts: Opportunities And Pitfalls, Donald L. Horowitz

Faculty Scholarship

This memorandum considers how to design constitutional courts to be most effective. With reference to examples such as Hungary, Italy, and Russia, the article examines dimensions including jurisdiction, appointment and tenure, and the effect of judicial declarations of unconstitutionality. The article also examines how a carefully designed and properly limited constitutional court can aid the creation of the rule of law, with specific reference to Afghanistan.

Rationalizing The Commission: The Philosophical Premises Of The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Aaron J. Rappaport

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Unprincipled Punishment: The U.S. Sentencing Commission's Troubling Silence About The Purposes Of Punishment, Aaron J. Rappaport

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Statutory Inflation And Institutional Choice, Lawrence Solan

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Defenders Feel Defensive, Jane M. Spinak

Faculty Scholarship

The newest version of problem-solving courts has scarcely reached adolescence. Many of these courts remain in the "model" stage, attempting to create a structure and vision that will have a transformative, systemic effect. Others, drug courts in particular, have proliferated across the country and are on the verge of going to scale in many states. Lawyers representing individual clients in these courts are struggling to identify, define and perform their professional duties, at the same time that the courts are being created. To understand why it is a struggle, we need to contextualize the lawyers' experiences: what is it about …

Problem-Solving Courts: From Innovation To Institutionalization, Michael C. Dorf, Jeffrey A. Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

The phenomenal growth of drug courts and other forms of "problem-solving" courts has followed a pattern that is characteristic of many successful innovations: An individual or small group has or stumbles upon a new idea; the idea is put into practice and appears to work; a small number of other actors adopt the innovation and have similar experiences; if there is great demand for the innovation – for example, because it responds to a widely-perceived crisis or satisfies an institutional need and resolves tensions within organizations that adopt it – the innovation rapidly diffuses through the networks in which the …

When All Of Us Are Victims: Juror Prejudice And ‘Terrorist’ Trials, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Norm Of Prior Judicial Experience And Its Consequences For Career Diversity On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Existence Conditions And Judicial Review, Matthew D. Adler, Michael C. Dorf

Faculty Scholarship

Although critics of judicial review sometimes call for making the entire Constitution nonjusticiable, many familiar norms of constitutional law state what we call "existence conditions" that are necessarily enforced by judicial actors charged with the responsibility of applying, and thus as a preliminary step, identifying, propositions of sub-constitutional law such as statutes. Article I, Section 7, which sets forth the procedures by which a bill becomes a law, is an example: a putative law that did not go through the Article I, Section 7 process and does not satisfy an alternative test for legal validity (such as the treaty-making provision …

Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint, Barak D. Richman, Mario Bergara, Pablo T. Spiller

Faculty Scholarship

This paper addresses the contradictory results obtained by Segal (1997) and Spiller and Gely (1992) concerning the impact of institutional constraints on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision making. By adapting the Spiller and Gely maximum likelihood model to the Segal dataset, we find support for the hypothesis that the Court adjusts its decisions to presidential and congressional preferences. Data from 1947 to 1992 indicate that the average probability of the Court being constrained has been approximately one-third. Further, we show that the results obtained by Segal are the product of biases introduced by a misspecified econometric model. We also discuss …

Marbury And Judicial Deference: The Shadow Of Whittington V. Polk And The Maryland Judiciary Battle, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

On the 200th anniversary of Whittington and approaching the 200th anniversary of Marbury, this article revisits these two decisions and challenges legal scholars' assumptions that they were such strong precedents for judicial review.⁵ When one takes into account the broader contexts, both decisions were in fact judicial capitulations to aggressive legislatures and executives. The Maryland General Court asserted its judicial supremacy only in dicta, and the court failed to enforce judicial supremacy when it was legally justified. This article picks apart the court's reasoning step by step, using Whittington to illuminate Marbury and Marbury to illuminate Whittington. …