Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (61)
- Judges (57)
- Litigation (41)
- Juvenile Law (35)
- Law and Society (30)
-
- Legal History (28)
- Civil Procedure (27)
- Criminal Law (27)
- Jurisdiction (26)
- Legislation (24)
- Criminal Procedure (20)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (19)
- Jurisprudence (19)
- State and Local Government Law (19)
- First Amendment (17)
- Legal Remedies (14)
- Civil Law (13)
- Supreme Court of the United States (13)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (12)
- Law and Politics (12)
- Evidence (11)
- Family Law (11)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (11)
- Legal Profession (11)
- President/Executive Department (11)
- Torts (10)
- Religion Law (9)
- Administrative Law (8)
- Keyword
-
- California Supreme Court (51)
- Survey (51)
- Supreme Court (29)
- United States Supreme Court (27)
- Litigation (21)
-
- Courts (15)
- Constitutional law (14)
- California (13)
- First Amendment (13)
- Alternative dispute resolution (11)
- Arbitration (11)
- Court (11)
- Judicial process (11)
- Attorney (10)
- Constitution (10)
- Constitutional Law (10)
- Federalism (10)
- Jurisdiction (10)
- Judges (9)
- Juvenile court (9)
- Juvenile offenders (9)
- Legislation (9)
- Mediation (8)
- Trial (8)
- Criminal Procedure (7)
- Defendant (7)
- John Roberts (7)
- Judge (7)
- Jury (7)
- Juvenile justice (7)
Articles 1 - 30 of 269
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling
Pepperdine Law Review
There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …
Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar
Correcting Confusion Over Commandeering, Supremacy, And Preemption: A User’S Guide To Modern Federalism, Vikram David Amar
Pepperdine Law Review
Current disputes between state/local entities and the Trump administration, some of which build on flare-ups over the past few decades, place in sharp relief the key doctrinal features of modern federalism, many of which seem to confound the Supreme and lower courts, to say nothing of political actors and legal analysts. The mistakes being made run in both directions; sometimes states are wrongly confined, and in other episodes states are given (or are seeking) more than they are constitutionally due. In this Essay, I use several case studies—some from recent weeks or months and others from recent years or decades—to …
The Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber
The Imperious Presidency: Brazen Power Plays And Executive Overreach, Daniel Farber
Pepperdine Law Review
The Trump Administration has been prone to brazen power plays. These actions have three basic characteristics: they are dramatic deviations from conventional governance, generating headlines and online clicks; their legal (and sometimes factual) foundations are tenuous; and they are potentially effective even if they are ultimately held lawful. This Essay analyzes this phenomenon. It argues that such power plays can be a rational strategy for a president under certain circumstances. Power plays can help dominate the news flow and energize the political base. They can also cause behavior shifts in their targets, even when litigation would be likely to overturn …
“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
“The Future Of Executive Power”: An Overview, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.
Pepperdine Law Review
This symposium overview examines the rapid expansion of presidential power in the modern era, culminating in what the author and contributors describe as an unprecedented assertion of Article II authority during President Trump’s second term. It argues that the Constitution’s original separation-of-powers framework—designed to prioritize legislative authority and constrain the executive—has been inverted due to the growth of presidential control over foreign affairs, the administrative state, and policymaking. The article traces this shift through historical developments such as the New Deal, the rise of independent agencies, and the emergence of the “unitary executive” theory, while also analyzing recent Supreme Court …
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost
Pepperdine Law Review
Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin
Pepperdine Law Review
Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it …
Troubling Trends: Ada Definition-Of-Disability Cases 2019–2023, Nicole Buonocore Porter
Troubling Trends: Ada Definition-Of-Disability Cases 2019–2023, Nicole Buonocore Porter
Pepperdine Law Review
This empirical Article continues my every-five-year tradition of examining every federal case discussing the definition of disability since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was amended, effective 2009. The results of this research from the third five-year period (2019–2023) are disappointing in both familiar and surprising ways. Similar to the 2014–2018 period, we continue to see way too many courts incorrectly applying (or not even citing to) the ADA Amendments Act. Moreover, I discovered several new troubling trends in this dataset that raise the possibility that we might be heading toward another backlash against ADA plaintiffs. This Article presents my …
Benchmarked For Arbitration: Work Avoidance As An Explanation For Why Judges Have Become Increasingly Favorable Toward Compelled Arbitration, Michael Conklin
Benchmarked For Arbitration: Work Avoidance As An Explanation For Why Judges Have Become Increasingly Favorable Toward Compelled Arbitration, Michael Conklin
Pepperdine Law Review
The clear trajectory over the last 100 years has been for judges to become increasingly more favorable toward sending disputes to compelled arbitration and enforcing arbitration awards. This results in a modern widespread proliferation of compelled arbitration that has become increasingly controversial. Some have alleged that the steady trend toward courts favoring compelled arbitration is the result of a corresponding building up of trust among judges in the arbitration process. This Article posits an alternative theory: Namely, judges face immense incentives to clear their dockets, and compelled arbitration is a highly efficient tool to that end. Exploring the historical trajectory …
Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald
Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald
Pepperdine Law Review
Recently, juvenile justice reformers have had great success in expanding the reach of the juvenile court. Over the last two decades, many states have raised their age of majority, bringing older teens and young adults under the jurisdictional umbrella of the juvenile court. Likewise, many states have amended their transfer statutes, making transferring juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court more difficult. The success of these reforms is largely due to the relentless work of dedicated juvenile justice advocates and scholars. The “raise-the-age” movement and work to limit juvenile transfers has undoubtedly helped to retain more youthful offenders within …
Pleading With Particularity: Decoding When Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Claims Must Comply With Rule 9(B), Brooke R. Newman
Pleading With Particularity: Decoding When Computer Fraud And Abuse Act Claims Must Comply With Rule 9(B), Brooke R. Newman
Pepperdine Law Review
The primary tool for litigating cybercrimes is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which Congress enacted in 1984 following increased computer misuse. Since its debut, the CFAA has undergone a series of amendments. The most noteworthy of which for civil litigators came in 1994 when Congress enacted a civil penalty for cybercrimes. Part of this penalty includes 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4), which prohibits fraudulent conduct in connection with computer usage. In recent years, litigators have weaponized § 1030(a)(4) to challenge a variety of conduct, most of which has nothing to do with cybercrimes. These filings have split district courts …
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Is Snap Removal Unconstitutional?, Ryan H. Nelson
Pepperdine Law Review
In snap removal, an individual removes a civil action to federal district court from the courts of a state where one or more putative defendants are a citizen before any such putative defendant has been served with process. By removing before any forum-state defendants are served, the removal arguably eludes the forum-defendant rule, which prohibits removal based solely on the diversity or alienage jurisdiction statute if “any of the parties in interest properly . . . served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” For years, federal judges and legal academics have disputed …
The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick
The Problem With Direct Collateral Review, Jaden M. Lessnick
Pepperdine Law Review
Federal habeas review of state convictions is sharply circumscribed for a reason: Granting the writ of habeas corpus disrupts the federalism and finality interests that lie at the heart of state sovereignty over criminal law. Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Supreme Court’s equitable bars to relief reflect the structural dangers inherent in collateral review of state convictions. Given the increasing unavailability of federal habeas relief, state prisoners have turned to another vehicle for collateral federal review, one that bypasses AEDPA’s demanding standard: direct review of state post-conviction proceedings. And regrettably, the Court has entertained …
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker
Pepperdine Law Review
Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
The Word Is "Humility": Why The Supreme Court Needed To Adopt A Code Of Judicial Ethics, Laurie L. Levenson
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court is one of our most precious institutions. However, for the last few years, American confidence in the Court has dropped to a new low. Less than 40% of Americans have confidence in the Court and its decisions. Recent revelations regarding luxury trips, gifts, and exclusive access for certain individuals to the Justices have raised questions about whether the Justices understand their basic ethical duties and can act in a fair and impartial manner. As commentators have noted, the Supreme Court stood as the only court in America that was not governed by an ethical code. The question …
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Partisanship "All The Way Down" On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
Just as the American public is politically polarized, so too is the U.S. Supreme Court. More than ever before, a clear alignment exists between the Justices’ partisanship and their ideological leanings (known as “partisan sorting”). Disapproval of opposing-party identifiers also appears to have intensified (“partisan antipathy”). This Article offers evidence of both forms of polarization. It shows that partisan sorting has resulted in wide gaps in voting between Republican and Democratic appointees; and it supplies data on “us-against-them” judging in the form of increasing antipathy toward opposite-partisan presidents. Taken collectively, the data point not to law “all the way down,” …
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander
Pepperdine Law Review
Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …
The Play’S The Thing: A Response To Judge Benjamin Beaton, Aaron J. Walayat
The Play’S The Thing: A Response To Judge Benjamin Beaton, Aaron J. Walayat
Pepperdine Law Review
In a recent speech, later published as an essay, the Hon. Benjamin Beaton of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky shared his critical suggestions against the use of the honorific “Your Honor,” preferring instead the more neutral title “judge.” Judge Beaton’s reason for this preference stems from a fear that the current practice of judicial titles emphasizes status over function, which may inflate the individual judge’s ego while miscommunicating to the public that judges make, rather than find, law. This position, however, is misguided. Judicial titles emphasize the authority of the law through the authority …
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Jarkesy V. Sec: Are Federal Courts Pushing The U.S. Toward The Next Financial Crisis?, Jennifer Hill
Pepperdine Law Review
In the wake of both the Great Depression and the Financial Crisis of 2008, Congress established and expanded the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of this expansion, the SEC in-house administrative proceedings, designed to adjudicate SEC violations before the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs), were born. These in-house proceedings have faced multiple constitutional attacks in the past decade. In the most recent iteration of such challenges, Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house proceedings were unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) the in-house proceedings deprived petitioners of their constitutional right to jury …
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts
Pepperdine Law Review
Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Faux Advocacy In Amicus Practice, James G. Dwyer
Pepperdine Law Review
Amicus brief filing has reached “avalanche” volume. Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges look to these briefs particularly for non-case-specific factual information––“legislative facts”—relevant to a case. This Article calls attention to a recurrent yet unrecognized problem with amicus filings offering up legislative facts in the many cases centrally involving the most vulnerable members of society—namely, non-autonomous persons, including both adults incapacitated by mental illness, intellectual disability, or other condition, and children. Some amici present themselves as advocates for such persons but use the amicus platform to serve other constituencies and causes, making false or misleading factual presentations about the …
Defining “Different”–How Distinctive Methods Of Textual Interpretation Led To The Abduction Enhancement Circuit Split, Adam Manaa
Pepperdine Law Review
This note examines the federal circuit courts’ differing approaches to interpreting the robbery abduction enhancement in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, this note sets forth how the Sixth Circuit’s strict method of textual interpretation in United States v. Hill led to the erroneous holding that the term “different location” refers to “a place different from the store that is being robbed.” This note argues the court should have taken a more holistic interpretative approach, taking the underlying purpose of the Guidelines into account.
Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich
Pepperdine Law Review
The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
Pepperdine Law Review
Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Court Expansion And The Restoration Of Democracy: The Case For Constitutional Hardball, Aaron Belkin
Pepperdine Law Review
Neither electoral politics, norms preservation, nor modest good government reform can restore the political system because they cannot mitigate the primary threat to the American democracy, Republican radicalism. Those who believe otherwise fail to appreciate how and why radicalism will continue to impede democratic restoration regardless of what happens at the ballot box, misdiagnose the underlying factors that produce and sustain GOP radicalism, and under-estimate the degree of democratic deterioration that has already taken place. Republicans do not need to prevail in every election to forestall the restoration of democracy or to prevent Democrats from governing. The only viable path …
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
A Call For America's Law Professors To Oppose Court-Packing, Bruce Ledewitz
Pepperdine Law Review
A Court-packing proposal is imminent. Mainstream Democratic Party Presidential Candidates are already supporting it. The number of Justices on the Supreme Court has been set at nine since 1869, but this is merely a statutory requirement. As soon as Democrats regain control of the Presidency and the Congress, Court-packing will be on the agenda, either expressly or under the guise of Court-reform. Now is the time for the American legal academy to join together to oppose this threat. Court-packing would threaten democracy, destroy the rule of law and undermine judicial independence. It is a pointless and unnecessary reaction born of …
Filling The Illinois Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias
Filling The Illinois Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias
Pepperdine Law Review
President Donald Trump repeatedly argues that appellate court appointments constitute his major success. The President and the United States Senate Republican Party majority have established records by approving fifty very conservative, young, and capable appellate court jurists. However, their confirmations have exacted a toll, particularly from the many federal district courts which address seventy-nine unfilled positions in 677 judicial posts. One constructive illustration has been the three Illinois tribunals which confront five pressing openings. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts classifies three as “emergencies,” because the vacant seats have been protracted and involve substantial caseloads. Despite this circumstance, …
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Pepperdine Law Review
In Abercrombie & Fitch, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that Title VII religious accommodation cases are litigated and evaluated. This paper analyzes Abercrombie, explains how the Court eliminated religious accommodation as a freestanding cause of action, and suggests an altered proof framework for plaintiffs seeking an accommodation. The paper also explores the conflict between employee privacy rights and classic proof requirements for religious sincerity. The lower courts have largely failed to apprehend the change mandated by Abercrombie, with the result that their opinions are in disarray. The paper includes a chart organizing the diverse lower court opinions.
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon individuals for offenses against the United States. Courts have interpreted this power broadly, and the American public has historically accepted its use, even in the face of several controversial pardons over the last five decades. However, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio—a former Arizona sheriff who was held in criminal contempt of court for continuing to illegally detain suspected undocumented immigrants—scholars, activists, and political figures questioned whether this pardon was unconstitutional. This Comment discusses the Court’s interpretation of the pardoning power, controversial pardons in modern history, and the details of the …
The Johnson & Johnson Problem: The Supreme Court Limited The Armed Career Criminal Act's "Violent Felony" Provision—And Our Children Are Paying, Shelby Burns
Pepperdine Law Review
The Armed Career Criminal Act and United States Sentencing Guidelines prescribe sentence enhancements based upon a defendant’s prior convictions. In particular, these federal sentencing tools contain violent felony provisions that outline the requirements a state criminal statute must satisfy for a conviction to constitute a violent felony, making the convicted person eligible for a federal sentence enhancement. However, the Supreme Court’s holdings in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) severely limited the scope of both sentencing tools’ violent felony provisions, making it more difficult for certain crimes to …
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …