Courts Commons^™

An Update On Student Equal Access, Charles J. Russo

Educational Leadership Faculty Publications

In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990), the Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act (EAA), a federal law enacted to permit student-organized groups to meet during noninstructional time.

The EAA traces its origins to Widmar v. Vincent (1981). At issue in Widmar was a policy whereby officials at a state university in Missouri made campus facilities generally available to student groups for their activities. Treating religion as a form of free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that insofar as officials allowed more than 100 student groups to use campus facilities, they created a forum for …

Issue 4: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Demise Of Habeas Corpus And The Rise Of Qualified Immunity: The Court's Ever Increasing Limitations On The Development And Enforcement Of Constitutional Rights And Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences, Stephen R. Reinhardt

Michigan Law Review

The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution. Along with so many other judicial tools meant to safeguard the powerless, enforce constitutional rights, and hold the government accountable, habeas has been slowly eroded by a …

Proving Personal Use: The Admissibility Of Evidence Negating Intent To Distribute Marijuana, Stephen Mayer

Michigan Law Review

Against the backdrop of escalating state efforts to decriminalize marijuana, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices continue to bring drug-trafficking prosecutions against defendants carrying small amounts of marijuana that are permitted under state law. Federal district courts have repeatedly barred defendants from introducing evidence that they possessed this marijuana for their own personal use. This Note argues that district courts should not exclude three increasingly common kinds of “personal use evidence” under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 when that evidence is offered to negate intent to distribute marijuana. Three types of personal use evidence are discussed in this Note: (1) a …

An Incurable Malaise: Commonwealth V. Australian Capital Territory And Baskin V. Bogan As Symptoms Of Early-Onset Dystopia, Neville Rochow

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mormonism, Originalism, And Utah’S Open Courts Clause, Jarom R. Jones

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Commandments, Crosses, & Prayers: The Roberts Court’S Approach To Public Religion, Zachary D. Smith

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction - Aliens, Federal Courts And The Law Of Nations, Jeff Ballew

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Filartiga V. Pena-Irala: International Justice In A Modern American Court?, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Courtroom To Classroom: Judicial Policymaking And Affirmative Action, Dylan Britton Saul

Political Science Honors Projects

The judicial branch, by exercising judicial review, can replace public policies with ones of their own creation. To test the hypothesis that judicial policymaking is desirable only when courts possess high capacity and necessity, I propose an original model incorporating six variables: generalism, bi-polarity, minimalism, legitimization, structural impediments, and public support. Applying the model to a comparative case study of court-sanctioned affirmative action policies in higher education and K-12 public schools, I find that a lack of structural impediments and bi-polarity limits the desirability of judicial race-based remedies in education. Courts must restrain themselves when engaging in such policymaking.

Cross-Racial Misidentification: A Call To Action In Washington State And Beyond, Taki V, Flevaris, Ellie F. Chapman

Seattle University Law Review

Research indicates eyewitness identifications are incorrect approximately one-third of the time in criminal investigations. For years, this phenomenon has significantly contributed to wrongful convictions all over the country, including in Washington State. But jurors, attorneys, and police remain unaware of the nature and extent of the problem and continue to give undue weight to eyewitness evidence. Experts have estimated that approximately 5,000–10,000 felony convictions in the United States each year are wrongful, and research suggests that approximately 75% of wrongful convictions involve eyewitness misidentification. The phenomenon of eyewitness misidentification is also amplified and most troublesome in the context of cross-racial …

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies? The Current State Of Sexual Assault Reform Within The U.S. Military And The Need For The Use Of A Formal Decisionmaking Process In Further Reform, Danielle Rogowski

Seattle University Law Review

Who protects those who protect the nation? In the United States, these responsibilities are levied upon the U.S. Congress, which has Constitutional authority to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” As such, the U.S. military currently has a robust and well-developed judicial system governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Yet critics have attacked this system during the past two decades by alleging that it fails to adequately prevent and prosecute sexual assault within the ranks. Following scandals at the 1991 Tailhook Convention, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and the United States Air …

A Presumption Of Disclosure: Towards Greater Transparency In Asylum Proceedings, Rose Linton

Seattle University Law Review

Every day, Asylum Officers (AOs) and Immigration Judges (IJs) hear cases to determine if the asylum seeker has a genuine claim to protection under the Refugee Act, which prohibits returning a refugee to a country where her life or freedom is threatened due to race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. AOs and IJs are aware that their decision may mean life or death for an asylum seeker. They are also aware that false claims are “distressingly common,” that unscrupulous attorneys and unauthorized practitioners of immigration law have perpetrated fraudulent asylum schemes, and that granting …

"Home Rule" Vs. "Dillon's Rule" For Washington Cities, Hugh Spitzer

Seattle University Law Review

This Article focuses on the tension between the late-nineteenth century “Dillon’s Rule” limiting city powers, and the “home rule” approach that gained traction in the early and mid-twentieth century. Washington’s constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government, so long as local regulations do not conflict with general laws. The constitution also vests charter cities with control over their form of government. But all city powers are subject to “general laws” adopted by the legislature. Further, judicial rulings on city powers to provide public services have fluctuated, ranging from decisions citing the “Dillon’s Rule” …

Magic Words, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Broadly speaking, this Article has two goals. The first is to demonstrate the prominence of functionalism in the interpretive practices of the Supreme Court. Reading a case like NFIB, it would be easy to conclude that the tension between labels and function reflects a deep rift in our legal order. On reflection, though, the rift turns out to be something of a mirage. While judicial opinions do occasionally employ the rhetoric of label-formalism, we are all functionalists at heart.

The Article’s second goal is to explore two exceptions to this norm. One is a faux exception—an exception to functionalism that …

The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu

Catholic University Law Review

For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.

After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …

Residual Impact: Resentencing Implications Of Johnson's Potential Ruling On Acca's Constitutionality, Leah Litman

Articles

In January 2015, the Supreme Court directed the parties to brief and argue an additional question in Johnson v. United States: “Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague.” The order represents an unusual move because the defendant had not raised the vagueness issue and the Court issued the order after it had already heard argument on the question raised in the petition for certiorari. Commentators therefore view the order as a signal that the Court will likely invalidate the residual clause. This decision will have been several years …

[Un]Happy Together: Why The Supremacy Clause Preempts State Law Digital Performance Rights In Radio-Like Streaming Of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, Julie L. Ross

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Lovers of the music of Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Etta James, and hundreds of other recording artists whose records were made before February 15, 1972, may soon have a hard time hearing these great artists on any satellite or Internet radio service. Recently, two federal district courts have found that state laws were violated when satellite radio broadcaster Sirius XM Radio included pre-1972 sound recordings in its broadcasts without the owners’ permission, but these courts did not consider-–and the parties did not argue-–how the Supremacy Clause applies to those state law claims. This article argues that state laws purporting to …

Resurrecting Trial By Statistics, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

“Trial by statistics” was a means by which a court could resolve a large number of aggregated claims: a court could try a random sample of claim, and extrapolate the average result to the remainder. In Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court seemingly ended the practice at the federal level, thus removing from judges a tool that made mass aggregation more feasible. After examining the benefits and drawbacks of trial by statistics, this Article suggests an alternative that harnesses many of the positive features of the technique while avoiding its major difficulties. The technique is the “presumptive judgment”: a …

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Niki Kuckes's Post: Litigation Academy Returns, Niki Kuckes

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Concubinage And Union Libre: A Historical Comparison Of The Rights Of Unwed Cohabitants In Wrongful Death Actions In France And Louisiana, Robert F. Taylor

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Stern V. Verifone Holdings, Inc., Asher Grunis, Noam Sohlberg, Uzi Vogelman

Translated Opinions

[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]

Facts: A U.S. court approved a settlement in a class action that was filed against the Respondent, a U.S. company, and which concerned trade in securities. According to the terms of the settlement, it applies to the members of the represented class who are located both in and outside of the U.S. The Petitioner filed a motion for class certification against the Respondent …

Newsroom: A Closer Look At Mass Incarceration, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

La Vida Es Un Conflicto, Pero Hay Que Llevar Soluciones: La Resolución De Conflicto En Comunidades Rurales De San Ramón Nicaragua A Través De Facilitadores Judiciales Rurales Y Mediación, Marlee Raible

Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection

In rural parts of Nicaragua historically there has not been a lot of access to the justice system. Conflicts have been going unresolved for years leading to a high amount of violence as people take justice into their own hands. The recent implementation of the Rural Judicial Facilitators Program (RJFP) is an effort to provide access to justice directly in rural communities. These facilitators are trained to use mediation as their principal method to resolve conflict.

This study exposes perceptions of mediation and the RJFP from community members, facilitators, and judiciaries. It discusses the key role of the facilitator in …

The U.K. Supreme Court At War, Po Jen Yap

Washington International Law Journal

This article contends that the underlying normative assumptions of civil libertarians and national security “executive unilateralists” are premised on a variant of the “nirvana fallacy.” In other words, civil libertarians generate a best-case scenario for rigorous judicial oversight over executive action during emergencies and compare it to the worst-case scenario for executive action; the reverse holds true for executive unilateralists. In practice, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has been cognizant of the institutional advantages and limitations of its office when it adjudicates national security disputes, and has not succumbed to the criticisms of scholars in either camp. Instead, …

An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins

Northwestern University Law Review

28 U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final “judicial” decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are “administrative.” Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating …

Silent Similarity, Jessica D. Litman

Articles

From 1909 to 1930, U.S. courts grappled with claims by authors of prose works claiming that works in a new art form—silent movies—had infringed their copyrights. These cases laid the groundwork for much of modern copyright law, from their broad expansion of the reproduction right, to their puzzled grappling with the question how to compare works in dissimilar media, to their confusion over what sort of evidence should be relevant to show copyrightability, copying and infringement. Some of those cases—in particular, Nichols v. Universal Pictures—are canonical today. They are not, however, well-understood. In particular, the problem at the heart of …

Between The Ceiling And The Floor: Making The Case For Required Disclosure Of High-Low Agreements To Juries, Richard Lorren Jolly

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Parties are increasingly using high-low agreements to limit the risks of litigation. High-low agreements are contracts in which defendants agree to pay plaintiffs a minimum recovery in return for plaintiffs’ agreement not to execute on a jury award above a maximum amount. Currently no jurisdiction requires high-low agreements to be disclosed to the jury. This Note argues that disclosure should be required. It contends that non-disclosed high-low agreements are a type of procedural contract modifying the jury’s core adjudicative function. Drawing on theories of procedural justice, it suggests that by usurping the jury’s role these agreements undermine the legitimacy of …

Duty To Defend And The Rule Of Law, Gregory F. Zoeller

Indiana Law Journal

This Article challenges Eric Holder’s and William Pryor’s views and explains the proper role of a state attorney general when a party challenges a state statute. In short, an attorney general owes the state and its citizens, as sovereign, a duty to defend its statutes against constitutional attack except when controlling precedent so overwhelmingly shows that the statute is unconstitutional that no good-faith argument can be made in its defense. To exercise discretion more broadly, and selectively to pick and choose which statutes to defend, only erodes the rule of law. (introduction)

Foreign Precedents In Constitutional Adjudication By The Supreme Court Of Singapore, 1963-2013, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Washington International Law Journal

This article surveys the use of foreign precedents in constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore for over half of a century during the terms of the first three Chief Justices—Wee Chong Jin (1963–1990), Yong Pung How (1990–2006), and Chan Sek Keong (2006–2012)—and the first year in office of the fourth Chief Justice, Sundaresh Menon (2012–2013). It concludes that while judges have always cited foreign case law, they have only actually applied foreign cases where the wording of the Constitution and the constitutional arrangements in Singapore are fairly analogous to the constitutional texts and arrangements upon which the cases …