Courts Commons^™

The Need For A Historical Exception To Grand Jury Secrecy In The Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Daniel Aronsohn

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First Amendment …

Brief Of Religious Liberty Scholars, Employment Law Scholars, And Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers For Human Rights As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Douglas Laycock, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 19-1388
Jason Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water

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

From the Summary of Argument

This case is an ideal vehicle for correcting an error that has undermined protection for religious workers across the country, in defiance of clear statutory text and underlying principles of religious liberty.

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

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 …

United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton

Texas A&M Law Review

The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify …

A Better Madden Fix: Holistic Reform, Not Band-Aids, To Modernize Banking Law, Matthew J. Razzano

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Historically, state usury laws prohibited lending above certain interest rates, but in 1978 the Supreme Court interpreted the National Bank Act (NBA) to allow chartered banks to issue loans at rates based on where they were headquartered rather than where the loan originated. States like South Dakota virtually eliminated interest rate ceilings to attract business, incentivizing national banks to base credit operations there and avoid local usury laws. In 2015, however, the Second Circuit decided Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC and reversed long-standing banking practices, ruling that non-chartered financial institutions were not covered by the NBA and were therefore subject …

The Pieces Of Housing Integration, Kristen Barnes

College of Law - Faculty Scholarship

Notwithstanding the enactment of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, accomplishing racially-integrated housing across the United States remains an unattained goal. The costs associated with this failure are innumerable. Black Americans have endured harms in many areas, including health, education, wealth, and employment. More broadly, the nation has incurred considerable socioeconomic and political costs. In the interdisciplinary book, Moving Toward Integration, authors Richard Sander, Yana Kucheva, and Jonathan Zasloff analyze why the promise of racially-integrated housing remains unfulfilled and identify noteworthy strategies for changing course. Engaging with their arguments, this article highlights several structural impediments to altering racial housing …

Revisiting And Confronting The Federal Judiciary Capacity “Crisis”: Charting A Path For Federal Judiciary Reform, Ryan G. Vacca, Peter S. Menell

Law Faculty Scholarship

[excerpt] "This Article revisits and confronts the growing caseload and congestion problems plaguing the federal judiciary. It begins by tracing the history and political economy surrounding judiciary reform. It then updates data on caseloads, processing times, certiorari petitions, en banc review, and other measures of judicial performance, revealing expanding caseloads and growing complexity and fragmentation of federal law. Part III explores the political, institutional, and human causes of the logjam over judiciary reform and offers an antidote: a commission tasked with developing a judiciary reform act that would not go into effect until 2030. The “2030 Commission” members would …

Should Judges Have A Duty Of Tech Competence?, John G. Browning

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

In an era in which lawyers are increasingly held to a higher standard of “tech competence” in their representation of clients, shouldn’t we similarly require judges to be conversant in relevant technology? Using real world examples of judicial missteps with or refusal to use technology, and drawn from actual cases and judicial disciplinary proceedings, this Article argues that in today’s Digital Age, judicial technological competence is necessary. At a time when courts themselves have proven vulnerable to cyberattacks, and when courts routinely tackle technology related issues like data privacy and the admissibility of digital evidence, Luddite judges are relics that …

The Kavanaugh Court And The Schechter-To-Chevron Spectrum: How The New Supreme Court Will Make The Administrative State More Democratically Accountable, Justin Walker

Indiana Law Journal

In a typical year, Congress passes roughly 800 pages of law—that’s about a seveninch

stack of paper. But in the same year, federal administrative agencies promulgate

80,000 pages of regulations—which makes an eleven-foot paper pillar. This move

toward electorally unaccountable administrators deciding federal policy began in

1935, accelerated in the 1940s, and has peaked in the recent decades. Rather than

elected representatives, unelected bureaucrats increasingly make the vast majority

of the nation’s laws—a trend facilitated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in three

areas: delegation, deference, and independence.

This trend is about to be reversed. In the coming years, Congress will …

Judicial Independence: Tweak The Guiding Paradigm, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Over time, the public has simply ceased to believe judges when say that they follow the law, and nothing but. If judges impose their ideological policy preferences, the argument goes, why should they be independent from political controls, when other policymakers are not? We have reached the point where, when judges seek to defend the customs and conventions that have guarded against incursions upon their independence by arguing that “we are all about the law and nothing else,” the public response has increasingly become, “No, no, no, your nose is growing.”

Boldly Marching Through Closed Doors: The Experiences Of The Earliest Female Attorneys In Their Own Words, Nicole P. Dyszlewski

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

In A Class Of Its Own: Bristol-Myers Squibb'S Worrisome Application To Class Actions, Grant Mcleod

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court’s holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court has far-reaching implications for federally filed class actions. While the case concerned a mass action in the California state courts, the opinion contained strong dicta to suggest its principles of specific jurisdiction could be applied to federal class—an entirely different procedural tool with its own host of complexities and problems. In the three years following the decision, federal district courts are split on how to apply the Bristol-Myers Squibb analysis to class actions. A distinct category of courts have applied the analysis to dismiss absent class members’ claims when …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Akron Law Review

This article—part of a symposium on federal appellate procedure—addresses questions of appellate jurisdiction that have played an important role in litigation challenging Donald Trump’s conduct under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. When federal trial judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland rejected Trump’s early attempts to dismiss two of these cases, Trump sought immediate relief from the federal courts of appeals rather than allowing the litigation to proceed in the district courts. The lack of a traditional final judgment, however, prompted difficult jurisdictional issues for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the relationship between appellate mandamus …

Three Ideas For Discretionary Appeals, Bryan Lammon

Akron Law Review

Discretionary appeals currently play a limited role in federal appellate jurisdiction. But reformers have long argued for a larger role. And any wholesale reform of the current appellate-jurisdiction system will likely involve additional or expanded opportunities for discretionary appeals. In this essay, I offer three ideas for the future of discretionary appeals—what form they might take in a reformed system of federal appellate jurisdiction and how we might learn about their function. First, remove any limits on the types of decisions that can be certified for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Second, give parties one opportunity in a …

The Renaissance Of Permissive Interlocutory Appeals And The Demise Of The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Akron Law Review

Reserving appeals to final judgments has a long history in the federal courts, as do exceptions to that rule. The problem has less been the existence of the exceptions, but rather their scope and application. This article addresses two of those exceptions. One is permissive interlocutory appeals codified in section 1292(b) of the Judicial Code. That exception, requiring the permission of both the trial and appellate courts, has numerous advantages over other exceptions, has been frequently touted as such by the Supreme Court, and has been applied in several recent high-profile cases. In contrast, the collateral order doctrine, an ostensible …

Judicial Disqualification On Appeal, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Gregory Hilbert

Akron Law Review

Adjudication by an impartial decision maker is one of the cornerstones of due process. The interest is so fundamental that constitutional due process guards against even the appearance of partiality, and federal judges are statutorily required to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Courts and scholars alike have struggled with what it means to “reasonably question” a judge’s impartiality. That question has taken on greater salience in recent years, as deepening partisan divisions have increasingly led parties to express skepticism of judicial neutrality.

When a party files a motion to disqualify a judge …

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

Fixing The Broken System Of Assessing Criminal Appeals For Frivolousness, Andrew S. Pollis

Akron Law Review

This article seeks to end fifty years of confusion over how to proceed when a criminal defendant wants to appeal but appointed counsel sees no basis for doing so.

Practices vary among jurisdictions, but most require counsel to explain the predicament to the court—often at a level of detail that compromises the duty of loyalty to the client. Most also require the court to double-check counsel’s conclusion by conducting its own independent review of the record, thus burdening judges and blurring the important line between judge and advocate. And at no point in this process does the defendant have a …

Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin

Brooklyn Law Review

Personal jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for any civil court’s constitutional exercise of adjudicative authority over a defendant, and one of civil procedure’s most fundamental concepts. The Supreme Court is acutely aware of difficulties facing personal jurisdiction doctrine in an evolving world and the need for jurisprudential solutions to those problems. But recent inconsistent trends in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence have served to further complicate the doctrine. Such overcomplication often leads to unpredictability, which both increases expenses for litigants and creates additional work for the already overburdened federal civil docket. This problem is exacerbated when litigation arises out of …

Protecting The Social Utility Of Appraisal Arbitrage: A Case For Amending Delaware Law To Strengthen The Appraisal Remedy After Dell, Thomas J. Meriam

Brooklyn Law Review

The landscape of M&A litigation in Delaware has undergone a substantial transformation within the last decade. Almost every transaction involving the acquisition of a publicly traded company has attracted stockholder litigation. This note considers Delaware’s attempt to strike the right balance between deterring frivolous litigation and ensuring adequate stockholder protections. In particular, this note considers the social utility of Delaware’s appraisal remedy and the practice of “appraisal arbitrage.” This note puts forth reasons as to why a healthy market of appraisal arbitrage benefits all stockholders: a meaningful threat of appraisal litigation encourages better sales practices in the market for corporate …

The Meaning Of Federalism In A System Of Interstate Commerce: Free Trade Among The Several States, Donald J. Kochan

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

As states become dissatisfied with either the direction of federal policy or the

gridlock that seems like a barrier frustrating action, their disdain or impatience is

increasingly manifest in state legislative or regulatory efforts to reach big issues

normally reserved to federal resolution. Increasingly, such efforts to stake a position

on issues of national or international importance are testing the limits of state

autonomy within a system of federalism that includes robust protection for the free

flow of commerce among the several states.

This Essay provides the primary historical backdrop against which these

measures should be judged with a particular …

Reconsidering Wrongful Birth, Luke Isaac Haqq

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The tort action for “wrongful birth” has a history dating back at least to the

1960s, when it emerged along with the claims for “wrongful life” and “wrongful

conception.” Since their incipience, this trio of lawsuits has generated an expansive

commentary, reaching into thousands of articles in the legal literature alone. With a

divide among federal circuits on wrongful birth only beginning to gain visibility with

Doherty v. Merck & Co. in 2018 and Zelt v. Xytex Corp. in 2019, the wrongful

birth claim could potentially provide a site for the Supreme Court to revisit national

abortion policy.

The …

Exactly What They Asked For: Linking Harm And Intent In Wire Fraud Prosecutions, Christina M. Frohock, Marcos Daniel Jiménez

University of Miami Law Review

Recent opinions have obscured the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s guidance on federal criminal fraud prosecutions. In 2016, the court decided United States v. Takhalov and found no crime of wire fraud where the alleged victims received the benefit of their bargain. Just three years later, the concurring opinion in United States v. Feldman criticized that prior reasoning as puzzling, inviting problematic interpretations that become untethered from the common law of fraud. This Article tracks the development of the court’s view and argues for an interpretation of Takhalov that links harm to the specific intent necessary for …

The Difference Of One Vote Or One Day: Reviewing The Demographics Of Florida’S Death Row After Hurst V. Florida, Melanie Kalmanson

University of Miami Law Review

As the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Florida and Alabama—two leaders in capital punishment in the United States—the Eleventh Circuit reviews several claims each year related to capital punishment. Florida is home to one of the largest death row populations in the country. Thus, understanding Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is important for understanding capital punishment nationwide.

This Article analyzes the empirical demographics of Florida’s death row population and reviews how defendants are sentenced to death and ultimately executed in Florida. The analysis reveals that although age is not a factor upon which murder/manslaughter defendants are discriminated against in the …

A Cure For Every Ill? Remedies For “Pathological” Arbitration Clauses, Harout J. Samra, Ramya Ramachanderan

University of Miami Law Review

Defective arbitration and dispute resolution clauses—widely called “pathological clauses”—may undermine parties’ intent to seek recourse to arbitration rather than the courts. Questions concerning the existence and validity of arbitration clauses are subject to state contract law despite the wide sweep of the Federal Arbitration Act. This Article examines selected common “pathologies” and reviews recent court decisions, including from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and its constituent federal district courts, concerning the enforcement of such clauses.

Recklessness, Intent, And War Crimes: Refining The Legal Standard And Clarifying The Role Of International Criminal Tribunals As A Source Of Customary International Law, Brian L. Cox

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Article explores the substantive and procedural aspects of the assertion that recklessness is included on the spectrum of mens rea for war crimes as a matter of customary international law. The substantive aspect of the inquiry, in Part I, engages in a critical assessment of the assertion that the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals indicates that recklessness is sufficient to support a war crimes prosecution in general. The procedural aspect, in Part II, contests the prevailing “principal-agent” construct of describing the relationship between states and international criminal tribunals and the resulting role of tribunals in establishing customary international law. …

The Great Writ And Federal Courts: Judge Wood's Solution In Search Of A Problem, William H. Pryor Jr.

Notre Dame Law Review

Judge Diane Wood provides, in her characteristically efficient prose, a thoughtful overview of the history of the Great Writ in service of a thesis that her essay otherwise fails to support. Judge Wood invokes Judge Henry Friendly’s classic article, Is Innocence Irrelevant? Collateral Attack on Criminal Judgments, to suggest that the writ of habeas corpus should be expanded to allow federal courts to review the petitions of state prisoners who allege their actual innocence without otherwise identifying any violation of federal law in securing their convictions. But that thesis cannot be squared with the proposal Judge Friendly championed in …

Only Where Justified: Toward Limits And Explanatory Requirements For Nationwide Injunctions, Milan D. Smith Jr.

Notre Dame Law Review

In Part I of this Article, I discuss the existing law and current debates surrounding nationwide injunctions. I consider the origins of both the apparent recent surge in the issuance of nationwide injunctions and the apparent recent surge in skepticism concerning nationwide injunctions. In Part II, I analyze the potential justification for issuance of a nationwide injunction that I find most compelling, and on which basis I argue a court is well within the bounds of Article III notwithstanding the indirect benefits of such injunction to nonparties. In Part III, I consider three other sometimesasserted justifications that I argue courts …