Courts Commons^™

Original Understanding And The Whether, Why, And How Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For more than one hundred years, legal scholars have endlessly and heatedly debated whether judicial review of federal legislation was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. The stakes of the debate are high. If judicial review was part of the original understanding, then there is a strong argument that the practice is grounded in the majority’s will, just as the Founders’ Constitution is. But if it is not—if, as Alexander Bickel and others have claimed, judicial review was a sleight-of-hand creation of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison—then judicial review is either counter-majoritarian or else must …

Eliminating Fear Through Recreating Community In Rwanda: The Role Of The Gacaca Courts, Christine M. Venter

Journal Articles

This article describes the institution of the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda, which were set up to try people charged with participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The author examines the options available to the Rwandan government in seeding to prosecute people charged with crimes related to the genocide, and concludes that, while flawed, the gacaca courts were the best option available. The article explores how the courts were developed based on the participatory and restorative ideals of African indigenous legal systems, and how these courts provide an opportunity for some form of "truth telling" in post-genocide Rwanda.

The Kerr Principle, State Action, And Legal Rights, Donald J. Herzog

Articles

A Baltimore library refused to admit Louise Kerr to a training program because she was black. Not that it had anything against blacks, but its patrons did. When Kerr launched a civil suit against the library alleging a violation of equal protection of the laws, the courts credited the library's claim that it had no racist purpose, but Kerr still prevailed-even though the case occurred before Title VII and Brown v. Board of Education. Here a neutral and generally applicable rule ("serve the patrons"), when coupled with particular facts about private parties (the white patrons dislike blacks), yielded an …

The Aggregate Harmony Metric And A Statistical And Visual Contextualization Of The Rehnquist Court: 50 Years Of Data, Peter A. Hook

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article contains aggregated data from fifty years of the annual matrixes of justice inter-agreement for particular Supreme Court terms published by the Harvard Law Review (1956 to 2005 terms). Aggregating how often any two justices sided together on cases for a particular term relative to the amount of cases the two justices heard together allows one to derive a measure of the particular term that reflects the relative amount of agreement or disagreement for the term. This new metric, called the Aggregate Harmony Metric, allows for comparative benchmarks. For instance, the 2005 term, with an aggregate agreement of 70%, …

An Empirical Analysis Of Life Tenure: A Response To Professors Calabresi And Lindgren, Ryan W. Scott, David R. Stras

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Opposition to life tenure has been steadily mounting in the legal academy and Professors Steve Calabresi and Jim Lindgren are among those leading the charge. Crucial to their argument that life tenure is fundamentally flawed is an empirical claim that the increases in average tenure among Supreme Court Justices are both dramatic and unprecedented.

In this article, the authors respond to Calabresi and Lindgren by showing that their hypothesis of dramatic and unprecedented growth in average tenure has two fundamental flaws. First, it suffers from a period-selection problem. Rendering the data using longer or shorter periods blunts or eliminates the …

"We Can't Tell Them Apart": When And How The Court Should Educate Jurors On The Potential Inaccuracies Of Cross-Racial Identifications, Aaron H. Chiu

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Scholarly Discourse, Public Perceptions, And The Cementing Of Norms: The Case Of The Indian Supreme Court And A Plea For Research, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

For economic and nuclear reasons, India has received considerable attention over the last decade from observers in the United States. But attuned Americans are well-aware of India's rich culture and status as a shining constitutional democracy for most of its post-1947 independent history. For all that India has accomplished, however, its public has long viewed its government officials with great disdain. At the same time, a fascinating norm exists in this society which holds one institution in exceedingly high regard - the Indian Supreme Court.

In this article, I seek to examine what accounts for this counter-intuitive norm. As opposed …

A Gambling Paradox: Why An Origin-Neutral 'Zero-Quota' Is Not A Quota Under Gats Article Xvi, Donald H. Regan

Articles

In US-Gambling, the Appellate Body held that an origin-neutral prohibition on remote gambling (which is how they mostly viewed the United States law) was "in effect" a "zero-quota", and that such a "zero-quota" violated GATS Article XVI:2. That holding has been widely criticized, especially for what critics refer to as the Appellate Body's "effects test". This article argues that the Appellate Body's "in effect" analysis is not an "effects test" and is not the real problem. The real mistake is regarding a so-called "zero-quota" as a quota under Article XVI. That is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the word …

Structural Reform In Criminal Defense: Relocating Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

This Article suggests a structural reform that could solve two different problems in criminal defense representation. The first problem is that the right to effective trial counsel lacks a meaningful remedy. Defendants are generally not permitted to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims until collateral review. Given that collateral review typically occurs years after trial, most convicted defendants have completed their sentences by that time and therefore have little incentive to pursue ineffectiveness claims. Moreover, there is no right to counsel on collateral review, and it is unrealistic to expect defendants to navigate the complicated terrain of an ineffectiveness claim …

Beyond Mitigation: Towards A Theory Of Allocution, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

THE COURT: I don't think I have time to listen .... I am not going to reexamine your guilt or innocence here. That is not the purpose of a sentence.. THE DEFENDANT: I did not have the chance to tell you .... THE DEFENDANT: But, your Honor, listen to me-1 Should the court hear this defendant? Is the story of innocence relevant at allocution-the defendant's opportunity to speak on his or her own behalf at the sentencing hearing prior to the imposition of sentence? Or, is the purpose of allocution something different, as the judge suggests? The answers depend on …

Judicial Interference: Redefining The Role Of The Judiciary Within The Context Of U.S. And E.U. Merger Clearance Coordination, Yasmine B. Carson

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In December 2003, Sony and Bertelsmann AG (BMG)sought approval from the Federal Trade Commission and European Commission to effectuate a joint venture between the two companies. Remarkably, almost two years after both antitrust authorities had cleared the Sony-BMG joint venture, the Court of First Instance annulled the European Commission's decision to approve the transaction. This groundbreaking decision by the Court of First Instance has the potential to undermine coordination efforts between antitrust authorities in the United States and the European Union, as well as to frustrate the predictability and efficiency that businesses need in merger regulation. Using the regulatory review …

The "Federalism Five" As Supreme Court Nominees, 1971-1991, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

This article looks back at the Senate confirmation hearing testimonies of five Supreme Court nominees. Following their appointments to the Court, these justices—Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas—generally voted together in path-breaking federalism cases. They reinvigorated constitutional law limits or decreed new ones on national legislative power, supported the "sovereignty" of state governments, and thus came to be known in some circles as the Rehnquist Court's "Federalism Five." As nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, these "federalism" justices did not announce, or for the most part even much hint at, what came to …

Judging International Judgments, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

What effect should rulings of international courts have in domestic courts? In the U.S., debate has centered on a series of rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). The VCCR, a multilateral treaty that the United States ratified in 1969, grants foreign nationals the right to seek the assistance of their consulates in the event that local authorities arrest them. An Optional Protocol to the VCCR gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the treaty. Since the late 1990s, the ICJ repeatedly …

Non-Pecuniary Interests And The Injudicious Limits Of Appellate Standing In Bankruptcy, S. Todd Brown

Journal Articles

Standing to appeal bankruptcy court orders today is limited to those with a pecuniary interest. This prudential limitation is based on the person aggrieved requirement of Section 39(c) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 - a requirement that was not included in the Bankruptcy Code. This article examines the extensive differences between the Act and the Code, the potential justifications for extending the pecuniary interest test in spite of the omission of the person aggrieved requirement, and the potential ramifications for parties and the integrity of the bankruptcy process. This analysis suggests that standing to appeal bankruptcy orders should be …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Promissory Estoppel: The Life History Of An Ideal Legal Transplant, Joel M. Ngugi

University of Richmond Law Review

This article hopes to accomplish three things. First, it will revisit the historical origins of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the American law of contracts and the role that Samuel Williston, the Chief Reporter of the Restatement (First) of Contracts ("First Restatement") played in the evolution of the doctrine. The dominant theory is that Williston conceptualized the new promissory estoppel doctrine in a way that retarded and blunted the doctrine shortly after its birth. This theory is adhered to by both critics and proponents of the expansion of promissory estoppel as a ground of promissory obligation. According to both …

Do You See What I See - Reflections On How Bias Infiltrates The New York City Family Court - The Case Of The Court Ordered Investigation, Leah A. Hill

Faculty Scholarship

That the Family Court is ill-equipped to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of cases handled therein is not news. Exploding caseloads, complex problems, and minimal resources are just a few of the ingredients that combine to undermine the Court's ability to fulfill its promise. What has been given less attention until very recently is the extent to which the Family Court's failures disproportionately impact low-income families of color. Any analysis of the Court's impact or efficacy must consider the context I have described in my observations of the Court- the images of black and brown litigants hurrying …

But Can It Be Fixed? A Look At Constitutional Challenges To Lethal Injection Executions, Ellen Kreitzberg, David Richter

Faculty Publications

This article argues that California's Procedure 770 as currently implemented is unconstitutional. Judge Fogel, after an exhaustive review of evidence from all parties,agrees. Although Judge Fogel believes that the lethal injection system, while broken "can be fixed," we argue that lethal injection, as a method of execution, is always unconstitutional because the procedures employed in its administration can never ensure against unnecessary risk of pain to the inmate. We also argue that the California legislature must step in to publicly review lethal injection executions and to investigate the conduct of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the …

Deliberation And Dissent: 12 Angry Men Versus The Empirical Reality Of Juries, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article contrasts the cinematic portrayal of jury deliberation in 12 Angry Men with an empirical portrait of real world juries derived from fifty years of jury research. The messages of this iconic movie converge with the findings of research studies in some surprising ways. During the course of the movie's deliberation, the different perspectives of the movie's jurors emerge as important contributors to the jury's fact finding, reinforcing the empirical finding that diversity among jurors produces robust deliberation and superior decision making. 12 Angry Men also illustrates both the importance of majority opinions and the power of dissenters under …

El Desarrollo Del Arbitraje Comercial Internacional: Sofisticacion O Complejdad, Horacio A. Grigera Naón

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Judicial Independence, Brian K. Landsberg

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

What's On Your Mind? Imputing Motive In A Title Vii Case, An Analysis Of Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Eeoc, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article examines the case E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, which was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court, but was dismissed before that argument occurred.

The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit: Visitation And Custody Of Patent Law, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court’s relationship to patent law sometimes seems like that of a non-custodial parent who spends an occasional weekend with the kids. The custodial parent is, of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 consolidated intermediate appellate jurisdiction over patent law cases in this single court, which hears appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. In-ternational Trade Commission. Day to day it is the Federal Circuit that reviews contested decisions of the institutions …

Forfeiture Of The Confrontation Right After Crawford And Davis, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

So my topic this morning is on forfeiture of the confrontation right, which I think plays a central role in confrontation doctrine. And to try to present that, let me state the entirety of confrontation doctrine as briefly as I can. This is, at least, what I think the doctrine is and what it can be: A testimonial statement should not be admissible against an accused to prove the truth of what it asserts unless the accused either has had or will have an opportunity to confront the witness-which should occur at trial unless the witness is then unavailable-or has …

Deliberative Dilemmas: A Critique Of Deliberation Day From The Perspective Of Election Law, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

My paper deals with two subject areas - deliberative democracy theory and election law - that have had surprisingly little contact with another. My paper tries to remedy this lacuna by looking at how the two fields intersect and can contribute to the understanding of one another. In particular, I look in detail at a particularly prominent proposal by two political theorists, Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin's Deliberation Day, and how the aims of that proposal might be frustrated by the present structure of American election law. I argue that because they fail to take into account certain structural features …

Creating The Right Mentality: Dealing With The Problem Of Juror Delinquency In The New South Korean Lay Participation System, Eric Seo

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The Judiciary Reform Committee of South Korea has planned to implement a five year pilot program that will allow public participation in trials. This will be the first time in the nation's judicial history that lay participation will be used. The format of the pilot program will be a mixture of the U.S.-style jury system and the German lay assessor system, with the program being more akin to the U.S. system. As South Korea has never had a lay participation system, it has a unique opportunity to create a system that will avoid problems associated with lay participation. This Note …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

Afterthoughts From A "Buzz Killer", Sarah Krakoff

Publications

No abstract provided.

The State Secrets Privilege And Separation Of Powers, Amanda Frost

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has repeatedly invoked the state secrets privilege in cases challenging executive conduct in the war on terror, arguing that the very subject matter of these cases must be kept secret to protect national security. The executive's recent assertion of the privilege is unusual, in that it is seeking dismissal, pre-discovery, of all challenges to the legality of specific executive branch programs, rather than asking for limits on discovery in individual cases. This essay contends that the executive's assertion of the privilege is therefore akin to a claim that the courts lack jurisdiction to …

Inter-American System, Claudia Martin

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.