Courts Commons^™

Panel Report: National Security Secrecy In The Courts: A Comparative Perspective From Israel And Ireland, Peter Raven-Hansen

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines how democratic nations, including Israel, Ireland, and the United States, balance national security secrecy with the rule of law in terrorism prosecutions. It highlights the challenges of using secret evidence in criminal trials while maintaining fair procedures, comparing the legal frameworks and practices of these countries. The analysis reveals common issues, such as the tension between protecting sensitive information and ensuring defendants' rights, and underscores the need for transparency and procedural integrity in terrorism cases.

Panel Report: Issues In Article Iii Courts, Debra A. Livingston

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article explores the challenges Article III courts face in balancing national security interests with procedural due process when handling cases involving classified information, particularly in terrorism-related prosecutions. It examines the logistical, constitutional, and evidentiary issues arising from the use of secret evidence, raising questions about the adequacy of current legal frameworks and the potential need for alternative procedural mechanisms.

Panel Report: Beyond Article Iii Courts: Military Tribunals, Status Review Tribunals, And Immigration Courts, Robert M. Chesney

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article explores the tension between national security interests and procedural fairness in the use of secret evidence across non-Article III contexts, including military tribunals, Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), and immigration courts. It examines the challenges of balancing government secrecy with individual rights, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards to navigate this complex issue.

The War On Terrorism In The Courts, Gerald E. Rosen

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article addresses the challenges posed by the war on terrorism to judicial independence and the protection of civil liberties. It argues that while the Executive and Legislative branches must act to safeguard national security, the Judiciary has a critical role in ensuring that constitutional rights and procedural safeguards are not eroded. The author emphasizes that courts must balance the need to defer to national security concerns with the obligation to protect fundamental rights, such as access to courts, right to counsel, and confrontation rights, even in terrorism cases.

Sword Or Shield? The Government's Selective Use Of Its Declassification Authority For Tactical Advantage In Criminal Prosecutions, Joshua L. Dratel

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article argues that the government's selective use of declassification authority under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) undermines the statute's intent to ensure fair trials. By declassifying inculpatory evidence while withholding exculpatory information, the government gains an unfair tactical advantage, particularly in terrorism cases where defendants often lack access to classified materials. The article advocates for reforms to CIPA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to restore balance and safeguard defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

The War Powers Outside The Courts, William Michael Treanor

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Unpublished Decisions, And The "No-Citation Rule", Dione Christopher Greene

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Insanity Defense In The Twenty-First Century: How Recent United States Supreme Court Case Law Can Improve The System, Julie E. Grachek

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Assessment Of Pws System Effects On The Random Selection Of Jurors And The Demographic Characteristics Of The Jury Poll In The Superior Court Of Arizona, Maricopa County, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman

Faculty Publications

In July 2006, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County (Superior Court), contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to review its jury management system. The Superior Court specifically requested that the NCSC Center for Jury Studies determine whether its Proximity Weighted Summoning (PWS) System randomly selects jurors from the master jury list for the county; whether the PWS System systematically excludes any identifiable group or population; and the effect of the PWS System on the demographic characteristics of jurors reporting at the various courthouse facilities in Maricopa County. The Superior Court also requested that the NCSC describe …

Reflections On Appellate Courts: An Appellate Advocate's Thoughts For Judges, Mary Massaron Ross

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Ebay V. Mercexchange As A Sign Of Things To Come: Is The Supreme Court Still Reluctant To Hear Patent Cases?, Peter O. Huang

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Rabbinic Contestations Of Authority, Christine Hayes

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Avoidance In The Executive Branch, Trevor W. Morrison

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

When executive branch actors interpret statutes, should they use the same methods as the courts? This Article takes up the question by considering a rule frequently invoked by the courts-the canon of constitutional avoidance. In addition to being a cardinal principle of judicial statutory interpretation, the avoidance canon also appears regularly and prominently in the work of the executive branch. It has played a central role, for example, in some of the most hotly debated episodes of executive branch statutory interpretation in the "war on terror." Typically, executive invocations of avoidance are supported by citation to one or more Supreme …

There's No "I" In "League": Professional Sports Leagues And The Single Entity Defense, Nathaniel Grow

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that outside of labor disputes, sports leagues should be presumed to be single entities. Part I argues that professional sports leagues are single entities in disputes regarding league-wide, non-labor policy. In particular, the focus of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on economic reality rather than organizational form necessitates a finding that professional sports leagues are single entities in non-labor disputes. Part II argues that professional sports leagues are not single entities for purposes of labor disputes; sports leagues, on the whole, do not involve a unity of interest for labor matters. More importantly, existing precedent outside of the …

The Slow Erosion Of The Adversary System: Article Iii Courts, Fisa, Cipa And Ethical Dilemmas, Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the increasing reliance on secret evidence in U.S. legal proceedings, particularly in post-9/11 national security and terrorism cases, facilitated by the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This trend undermines the adversarial system by denying defendants access to relevant information, raising ethical concerns for defense attorneys, and potentially eroding constitutional rights. The author advocates for reforms to balance national security with civil liberties, emphasizing the need for judicial vigilance and legislative changes to address these issues.

"Why Clerk? What Did I Get Out Of It?", Stephen L. Wasby

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah J. Challener

ExpressO

When a federal court grants an abstention-based dismissal in a diversity case, the court abdicates its strict duty to exercise its jurisdiction where that jurisdiction has been properly invoked. Thus, a federal court may not dismiss a case on abstention grounds unless it concludes that "exceptional circumstances" require the dismissal. When a federal court grants an abstention-based stay in a diversity case, however, the court does not violate its jurisdictional duty. According to the Supreme Court, an abstention-based stay is merely a postponement of the exercise of jurisdiction. Although the Court has characterized an abstention-based stay as a delay rather …

Herding Bullfrogs Towards A More Balanced Wheelbarrow: An Illustrative Recommendation For Federal Sentencing Post-Booker, Brian R. Gallini, Emily Q. Shults

ExpressO

The Article argues in favor of shifting the balance in federal sentencing toward a more indeterminate system. By exploring the post-Booker legal landscape at both the federal and state levels, the Article asserts that the judiciary's continued reliance on the “advisory" Guidelines has practically changed federal sentencing procedures very little in form or function. Accordingly, the Article proffers that, rather than insisting upon the Guidelines' immutability, federal sentencing would do well to reflect upon its own history, and the evolution of its state counterparts.

Radicals In Robes: A Review, Dru Stevenson

ExpressO

This essay reviews and critiques Cass Sunstein’s new book about conservative activists in the federal judiciary. After a discussion of Sunstein’s (somewhat misleading) rhetorical nomenclature, this essay argues that Sunstein’s proposed “minimalist” methodology in constitutional jurisprudence is beneficial, but not for the reasons Sunstein suggests. Sunstein alternatively justifies judicial restraint or incrementalism on epistemological self-doubt (cautiousness being an outgrowth of uncertainty) and his fear that accomplishments by Progressives in the last century will be undone by conservative judges in the present. Constitutional incrementalism is more convincingly justified on classical economic grounds. While affirming Sunstein’s overall thesis, this essay offers an …

Tough Talk From The Supreme Court On Free Speech: The Illusory Per Se Rule In Garcetti As Further Evidence Of Connick’S Unworkable Employee/Citizen Speech Partition, Sonya K. Bice

ExpressO

Garcetti v. Ceballos was intended to clear up an area of First Amendment law so murky that it was the source not only of circuit splits but also of intra-circuit splits—panels from within the same circuit had arrived at opposite results in nearly identical cases. As it turned out, the Supreme Court itself was as splintered as the circuits. Of all the previously argued cases that remained undecided during the Court’s transition involving Justice O’Connor’s retirement and Justice Alito’s confirmation, Garcetti was the only one for which the Court ordered a second argument. This suggested to some that without a …

When Should Judges Appoint Experts?: A Law And Economics Perspective, Jonathan T. Tomlin, David Cooper

ExpressO

The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals placed federal judges in the role of “gatekeepers” empowered to evaluate the reliability of often complex expert testimony. Many judges, commentators, and legal scholars have argued that court-appointed experts can assist judges in appropriately carrying out their gatekeeping role. However, previous literature has not evaluated the role of court-appointed experts in a rigorous framework that considers the complex interaction of the incentives of expert witnesses, the impact of expert witnesses on the decision-making of the fact finder, and the knowledge of the judge. In this article, we provide such a …

A Defense Of Structural Injunctive Remedies In South African Law, Danielle E. Hirsch

ExpressO

This Article argues that the use of structural injunction remedies by South African courts is appropriate, and, in light of demonstrated government inaction, often necessary in order to give meaning to the protection of socio-economic rights, which is mandated by their Constitution. The Article draws upon numerous United States judicial decisions where structural injunctions have been successfully implemented to address systemic institutional inaction and violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. In numerous instances, the South African government has not acted to effectively give meaning to the socio-economic rights which were broadly declared …

Enforcing Foreign Summary/Default Judgments: The Damoclean Sword Hanging Over Pro Se Canadian Corporate Defendants? Case Comment On U.S.A. V. Shield Development, Antonin I. Pribetic

ExpressO

Following the 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Beals v. Saldanha, where the “real and substantial connection” test is otherwise met (i.e. consent-based jurisdiction, presence-based jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction) the only available defences to a domestic defendant seeking to have a Canadian court refuse enforcement of a foreign judgment are fraud, public policy and natural justice. The 2005 Ontario decision in United States of America v. Shield Development Co., presents an opportunity to critically analyze the defence of natural justice through a juxtaposition of American and Canadian procedural law. The thesis is that procedural justice mandates that “form follow …

Searches & The Misunderstood History Of Suspicion & Probable Cause: Part One, Fabio Arcila

ExpressO

This article, the first of a two-part series, argues that during the Framers’ era many if not most judges believed they could issue search warrants without independently assessing the adequacy of probable cause, and that this view persisted even after the Fourth Amendment became effective. This argument challenges the leading originalist account of the Fourth Amendment, which Professor Thomas Davies published in the Michigan Law Review in 1999.

The focus in this first article is upon an analysis of the common law and how it reflected the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions. Learned treatises in particular, and to a lesser extent a …

The Military Commissions Act And Its Impact On Our Justice System, Azra B. Zaidi

Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Separation Of Powers And The Governor's Office In West Virginia: Advocating A More Deferential Approach To The Chief Executive From The Judiciary, Jason C. Pizatella

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Robert C. Byrd And The Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals: An Addendum Respecting Judge Robert Bruce King, M. Blane Michael

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Health Courts Are Unconstitutional, Amy Widman

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Review And The "Hard Look" Doctrine, Patrick M. Garry

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

But What Will They Do Without Unpublished Opinions?: Some Alternatives For Dealing With The Ninth Circuit's Massive Caseload Post F.R.A.P. 32.1, Bryan Wright

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.