Courts Commons^™

Support The Icc As A Vital Court Of Last Resort For Victims Of Grave International Crimes, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Gabor Rona

Online Publications

This public statement, issued on International Justice Day (July 17, 2026), affirms support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an independent judicial institution and a court of last resort for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Signed by more than 100 organizations and individuals, including legal scholars, practitioners, human rights advocates, and civil society organizations, the statement expresses concern over efforts to undermine the ICC's independence and functioning. It calls on the United States to reaffirm its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, and international accountability, emphasizing the importance …

Aggregation And The “Universal” Injunction, Portia Pedro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, we begin with a brief summary of the CASA decision’s holding regarding the availability of “universal” injunctions. Part II discusses the relationship between remedies and judicial review and the important role that such injunctions play in that regard. Part III explores how class actions could serve as an alternative path for federal courts, after engaging in judicial review, to make their decisions meaningful by requiring officials to comply with the law and to cease illegal actions or policies. We also respond to several objections to the use of class actions in this context. The final Part addresses …

Aggregation And The “Universal” Injunction, Portia Pedro, Adam Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

A crucial function of judicial review is not only “to say what the law is,”¹ but also to provide the remedies to vindicate that law.²  Judicial review plays an especially important role when government officials act in ways that violate federal law, including when they violate the Constitution.³  When government officials violate the law, the judicial review function supports a remedy that requires officials to comply with federal law by ceasing to pursue the illegal policy or practice.

Such “compliance” injunctions have been given the label “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions insofar as they go beyond giving “complete …

Exploring The Limits Of Qualified Immunity Under Harlow’S Discretionary Function Test, James E. Pfander, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

No abstract provided.

Algorithmic Tax Ownership, Young Ran (Christine) Kim, Dmitry Erokhin

Articles

Tax ownership is a crucial concept for determining tax liabilities, compliance, and enforcement. However, neither the courts nor the IRS has provided clear guidance on how to analyze it. Since the Supreme Court first outlined a twenty-six-factor test for determining tax ownership in Frank Lyon Co. v. United States in 1978, this multifactor test has remained largely unchanged, and there has been no further guidance from the courts or the IRS to this day. Even tests with shorter lists of factors only add to the confusion regarding compliance and enforcement, as there is no clarity on which factors are most …

Against The Single-Subject Rule For The Citizen Initiative, Jonathan L. Marshfield

UF Law Faculty Publications

The citizen initiative allows voters to bypass state legislatures and propose laws for a statewide referendum. It exists in twenty-four states but has national significance because initiatives drive reform on contested issues. Recently, courts have begun to clamp down on the initiative. One significant trend is the strict enforcement of the single-subject rule to strike initiatives when they are considered too broad. Although courts are notoriously inconsistent with the rule, they assert two reasons for aggressive enforcement. First, they claim the rule’s historic purpose is to prevent any form of “logrolling”—including any imaginable aggregation of public-regarding voting blocs. Second, courts …

Revocation Reconsidered: Probation Advocacy Through A Litigation Lens, Shira M. Diner

Faculty Scholarship

Being found in violation of probation has dire consequences. The person found in violation can be imprisoned, upending them from their job, family, and community. Unlike incarceration after a criminal trial, a sentence after a violation of probation is not the result of a legal process characterized by robust due process protections. It is also often not the result of a forceful and thorough defense. It is instead the consequence of a hearing where lawyers with the fixed mindset of an inevitable finding of a violation don’t engage in the same preparation that they would if it was a trial. …

Glossip’S Road Map To Nowhere, Vida Johnson

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma was heralded as a victory for the defense. This essay argues that the 2025 Glossip decision does little to fix the myriad problems that led to Mr. Glossip’s wrongful conviction. While ultimately the Supreme Court reached the correct outcome this time, the ordinary judicial process and its purported safeguards were not what saved Mr. Glossip’s life. Rather, it was random chance that came to Mr. Glossip’s aid.

Ten years earlier, the Supreme Court, with many of the same Justices on the bench now, paved the way for Mr. Glossip’s execution. The …

Law School News: Rwu Names Richard "Dick" Sullivan '79 And Judge Lara E. Montecalvo As 2026 Honorary Degree Recipients 4-16-2026, Kelly Brinza

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The American Immigration Lawyers Association And Immigration Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and immigration law scholars in support of the respondents in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) statute strictly limits the Executive Branch's authority to terminate TPS designations and requires continuation of protection unless the statutory conditions justifying designation no longer exist. The amici further contend that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function by protecting individuals from removal, detention, and loss of work authorization while conditions in designated countries remain unsafe.

Article Iii's Constraints On The Legislative Power, Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Article III’s heightened concreteness standard for statutory harms takes federal judges deep into legislative terrain, jeopardizing statutory damage provisions and confining Congress to post hoc solutions rather than preemptive strikes. The Supreme Court has insisted that creating a cause of action is a legislative function. At the same time, its recent standing cases instruct lower federal courts to permit suit on statutory injuries only when they find actual harm that bears a tight connection to injuries recognized at common law. This new harm requirement rests uneasily with countless statutes featuring statutory damage provisions that are in place precisely because damages …

(Mis)Judging Suspicion, Sherri Lee Keene

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided Illinois v. Wardlow, a Fourth Amendment case that allowed the high-crime nature of a location to be considered in determinations of whether there was reasonable suspicion to support a police stop. In making these determinations, courts rarely acknowledge the role that race can play in decisions that factor in the nature of a location as context. Yet even when the race of a defendant is not mentioned, high-crime area designations can act as a proxy for race inviting racial bias into courts’ analyses. Reasonable suspicion analysis involves the interpretation of a suspect’s …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Immigration Law Professors In Support Of Respondent, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law professors in support of the respondent in Bondi v. Lau before the Supreme Court of the United States. The brief argues that lawful permanent residents returning from travel abroad may not be treated as seeking admission unless they satisfy the statutory criteria set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It further contends that ambiguities in deportation statutes should be resolved in favor of noncitizens under the longstanding immigration rule of lenity.

Law School News: Isiah Dipina L'27: From Personal Experience To Policy Change 3-26-2026, Jane Govednik

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Covarrubias v. Vergara before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief supports rehearing en banc and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not authorize mandatory, no-bond detention of noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and the historical development of immigration detention, the amici contend that such detention authority has historically been limited to individuals seeking admission at the border.

Cardozo Stands Alone With A+ In Trial Advocacy From Above The Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law

Cardozo Law News Archive

Cardozo School of Law received an A+ in Trial Advocacy from Above the Law in its 2026 law school rankings, becoming the only law school in the nation to earn the highest distinction. The recognition highlights Cardozo's Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP), experiential curriculum, simulation courses, clinics, and competitive advocacy programs that prepare students for courtroom practice.

Brief Of First Amendment Scholars As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Joseph M. Terry, Stephen J. Fuzesi, James N. Sasso, Langston E. Ward, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute …

Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The plain language of Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR) Rule 3(d) requires a district court judge to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments rather than a short trial judge, and public policy requires adjudication of any proposed NRCP 59 motions.

The Brave New World Of Judicial Election, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election heralded the arrival of a new generation of judicial races in which state supreme courts are becoming war-torn forums for the resolution of deeply divisive policy questions that the federal courts and the other branches of government are unwilling or unable to address. It is a development that portends to be of unprecedented intensity, relative to the fractious “new politics of judicial elections” of the recent past and poses new challenges for legal theory and the existing judicial elections literature to explain. It adds new urgency to an increasingly stark choice: fight for the …

Brief Of Notre Dame Education Law Project, Notre Dame Program On Church, State & Society, And Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 25-802
Foothills Christian Ministries v. Kim Johnson

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment guarantees religious institutions the power to conduct their internal affairs. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey- Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 746 (2020). See also Cath. Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Lab. & Indus. Review Comm'n, 605 U.S. 238, 249 (2025); id. at 255 (Thomas, J., concurring). This principle of self-governance, known as the church autonomy doctrine, is an essential feature of the Constitution’s …

The Brady Materiality Standard, Brandon L. Garrett, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

The Brady doctrine requires prosecutors to disclose all favorable and material evidence to the defense. To effectuate that rule, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined materiality as a “reasonable probability” that the evidence would have affected the outcome at trial. But apart from that definition, the Court has resisted offering any further guidance to lower courts. While far too little is known about how Brady materiality claims are actually adjudicated, there is strong evidence that courts often reject Brady claims involving withheld evidence on the grounds that the evidence was not significant enough to be material.

To examine how Brady …

Reflections On Judicial Supervision Of Prosecutorial Powers, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The courts occasionally claim that the limits to the power to prosecute are different from the limits to other executive powers. They say that prosecutorial decisions are subject to judicial review on a reduced set of grounds compared to other executive decisions. I have previously argued that this approach is wrong, and aim to elaborate on the argument in this blog post. The focus will be on the laws of the UK and of Singapore, but it is hoped that the reflections here will be of some use in other common-law jurisdictions as well.

Is History Precedent?, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

It has been just over three years since the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to evaluate Second Amendment challenges by examining history and tradition. And it is no secret that the courts have struggled. This Article tackles a phenomenon that is born of that struggle. Overwhelmed by the task of evaluating historical claims, lower courts instead are turning to other judges as authorities on history. They are using what I call in this Article “historical precedents”—meaning language about history from an older decision that the subsequent judge then treats as authority, not as part of a legal rule but for …

Prof. Andrew Hammond Appointed To Seventh Circuit Advisory Committee On Circuit Rules, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

Andrew Hammond, Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, has been appointed to the Advisory Committee on Circuit Rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“I am honored to serve on the Seventh Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Circuit Rules,” Hammond said. “My first job out of law school was clerking for then-Chief Judge Wood of the Seventh Circuit, and my experience working for her and later Judge Dow in the Northern District of Illinois helped shape how I think about federal practice and procedure. I am also …

Brief For Amici Curiae Immigration Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioner-Appellee, Supporting Affirmance, Lindsay Nash

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief filed by immigration law scholars, including Cardozo School of Law Professor Lindsay Nash, in Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The brief examines the scope of mandatory immigration detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens seeking admission at the border rather than individuals apprehended within the interior of the United States.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Children's Rights Scholars And Advocates In Support Of Appellants' Opening Brief: Lighthiser V. Trump, Abigail L. Fleming, Douglas A. Ruley, Catherine Smith

Scholarly Articles

For decades, constitutional doctrine has recognized that children possess enforceable constitutional rights and that their developmental, physical, and social differences from adults are important considerations in constitutional analysis. Courts may not impute adult capacities, privileges, or political agency to children when determining whether their rights may be vindicated, leaving them no democratic mechanism to alleviate their injuries.

The district court’s dismissal of the youth plaintiffs’ claims rests on precisely that error. Although the court recognized that the children alleged concrete, severe, and escalating harms caused by the challenged executive actions, it concluded that relief must come from the political branches …

Brief Of Amici Curiae The Notre Dame Law Education Project And Utah Education Fits All In Support Of Appellants, Tyler R. Green, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 20250512-SC
Derek Brown, Attorney General v. Kevin Labresh

From the Argument

No one doubts the significant public interest in K-12 education. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954) (“[E]ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.”). And, for centuries, the critical responsibility for educating young people has been borne in significant part by private schools. Indeed, for many decades, private schools were essentially the only source of childhood education in the United States. It is a role those schools served—and continue to serve—well. While in Utah, as elsewhere, public schools are …

Trial By Character, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In this Article, I argue that courts regularly deviate from Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits character evidence—evidence of a defendant’s past misdeeds offered to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with a certain character trait on the occasion in question. These deviations undermine the fairness of a trial and the presumption of innocence. The Article addresses this problem in three ways. First, it explains how courts have misinterpreted Rule 404(b)—an error that I call the permitted-purpose fallacy—and how they have fortified this misinterpretation with a body of flawed principles and precedent. Second, it reports the results of …

The Bankruptcy Judge And The Generalist Tradition, Alexander Gouzoules

Faculty Publications

The prevailing academic consensus is that bankruptcy judges are specialists presiding over specialized courts. This Article contends that this description is incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate. Drawing on scholarly models of judicial specialization and historical surveys of the field, this Article contends that bankruptcy judges reflect a hybrid design choice: procedural specialization combined with substantive generalism. This model delivers many of the observed benefits of judicial specialization (including efficiency and technical competence) while preserving the cross-pollination of ideas and other benefits associated with the generalist tradition of American judging.

This Article also reflects on contemporary developments—most notably the rise …

Certiorari Transparency, Alexandra L. Klein, Michael L. Smith

Scholarly Articles

Amid increasing controversy over the Supreme Court’s amassing of power, rejection of precedent, reliance on the shadow docket, and Justices’ undisclosed acceptance of lavish gifts, legal scholars, commentators, and politicians have called for bold and far-reaching reforms to the Court, including term limits for Justices, stripping the Court of jurisdiction in certain cases, and adding Justices to the Court. This Article proposes a more subtle reform to the Court’s proceedings: the Court should make its certiorari de-terminations, in which it decides which cases to take up and review, public. Currently, the Court exercises near-complete discretion over the cases it decides …