Courts Commons^™

Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …

The Paradoxical Impact Of Scalia's Campaign Against Legislative History, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Kristen M. Renberg

Faculty Scholarship

Beginning in 1985, Judge and then Justice Antonin Scalia advocated forcefully against the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia’s position, in line with his textualism, was that legislative history was irrelevant and judges should avoid invoking it. Reactions to his attacks among Justices and prominent circuit judges had an ideological quality, with greater support from ideological conservatives. In this Article, we consider the role that political party and timing of judicial nomination played in circuit judges’ use of legislative history. Specifically, we hypothesize that Republican circuit judges were more likely to respond to the attacks on legislative …

Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas

Faculty Scholarship

Seventeen decisions in nine U.S. district courts from 2006 through 2019 have taken a demonstrably misgrounded starting point for Rooker–Feldman analysis. The cases have read language from a 2006 Supreme Court opinion, in which the Court quoted criteria stated by the lower court, as their guideline. But the Court summarily vacated the lower court’s judgment, and it had previously articulated, and has repeated, different criteria for federal courts to follow. The district-court decisions all appear to have reached correct results, but the mistake about criteria should be recognized and avoided as soon as possible before it creates potential mischief. And …

Avoiding Judicial Discipline, Veronica Root Martinez

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past several years, several high-profile complaints have been levied against Article III judges alleging improper conduct. Many of these complaints, however, were dismissed without investigation after the judge in question removed themselves from the jurisdiction of the circuit’s judicial council—oftentimes through retirement and once through elevation to the Supreme Court. When judges—the literal arbiters of justice within American society—are able to elude oversight of their own potential misconduct, it puts the legitimacy of the judiciary and the rule of law in jeopardy.

This Essay argues that it is imperative that mechanisms are adopted that will ensure investigations into …

Virtual Criminal Courts, Deniz Ariturk, William E. Crozier, Brandon L. Garrett

Faculty Scholarship

Criminal courtrooms are among many workplaces to shut down and adopt virtual operations in response to the coronavirus pandemic. As criminal courts around the United States suspended in-person proceedings, virtual hearings, where parties appear through videoconference or teleconference technology, have allowed courts to remain in session while reducing the danger to public health. Courts at all levels, from small municipal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, have been hearing arguments remotely. In 38 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, courts have either mandated or encouraged the use of virtual hearings when appropriate. Federal courts …

Historical Gloss, Madisonian Liquidation, And The Originalism Debate, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Constitution is old, relatively brief, and very difficult to amend. In its original form, the Constitution was primarily a framework for a new national government, and for 230 years the national government has operated under that framework even as conditions have changed in ways beyond the Founders’ conceivable imaginations. The framework has survived in no small part because government institutions have themselves played an important role in helping to fill in and clarify the framework through their practices and interactions, informed by the realities of governance. Courts, the political branches, and academic commentators commonly give weight to such …

Should I Stay Or Should I Go: Student Housing, Remote Instruction, Campus Policies And Covid-19, Patricia E. Salkin, Pamela Ko

Scholarly Works

In March 2020, as the world scrambled to understand and address myriad public health and economic challenges unfolding from the novel coronavirus labeled COVID-19, higher education was forced into a tailspin. This article examines the legal and policy challenges that result from, among other issues, the congregate housing situations existing for on- and off-campus housing at colleges and universities. The legal issues demonstrate federalism at work and include; at the federal level, regulations and guidance from the White House, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Education; at the State level from gubernatorial executive orders, state …

The Inherent And Supervisory Power, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Georgia Law Review

Parties to litigation expect courts to operate both
predictably and fairly. A core part of this expectation is
the presence of codified rules of procedure, which ensure
fairness while constraining, and making more
predictable, the ebb and flow of litigation.
Within the courts of this country, however, there is a
font of authority over procedure that courts often turn to
in circumstances when they claim that there is no
written guidance. This authority, referred to as the
“inherent” or “supervisory” power of courts, is an almost
pure expression of a court’s exercise of discretion in that
it gives courts the …

Free Speech And Off-Label Rights, Amy J. Sepinwall

Georgia Law Review

When a litigant invokes a constitutional right to
protect interests different from the ones underpinning
the right, he engages in what this Article calls an
off-label rights exercise. The Free Speech Clause has
recently become an especially prominent, and troubling,
site of off-label rights exercises. Two of the most
prominent cases in the Supreme Court’s last term
involved litigants who invoked their constitutional
rights to free speech to protect interests unrelated to
speech or expression. In Janus v. American Federation
of State, County, & Municipal Employees, a state
employee argued that forcing him to pay for the union’s
bargaining activities …

Pretrial Detention Of Indigents: A Standard Analysis Of Due Process And Equal Protection Claims, Robert William G. Wright

Georgia Law Review

Over the past several years, criminal justice activists
have sought to reform misdemeanor bail policies that
condition pretrial release on an arrestee’s ability to pay
a predetermined cash bond. Activists have challenged
such bail polices by filing lawsuits on behalf on indigent
persons who have been exposed to such policies. Often,
these lawsuits allege that bail policies violate both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. While due process and equal
protection analyses are generally well-defined, U.S.
Supreme Court precedent does not offer a clear analysis
for courts to apply to due process and equal protection …

The Meaning Of A Misdemeanor In A Post-Ferguson World: Evaluating The Reliability Of Prior Conviction Evidence, John D. King

Georgia Law Review

Despite evidence that America’s low-level courts are
overburdened, unreliable, and structurally biased,
sentencing judges continue to uncritically consider a
defendant’s criminal history in fashioning an
appropriate punishment. Misdemeanor courts lack
many of the procedural safeguards that are thought to
ensure accuracy and reliability. As with other stages of
the criminal justice system, people of color and poor
people are disproportionately burdened with the
inaccuracies of the misdemeanor system.
This Article examines instances in which sentencing
courts have looked behind the mere fact of a prior
conviction and assessed whether that prior conviction
offered any meaningful insight for the subsequent
sentence. …

What's The Difference Between A Conclusion And A Fact?, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, building on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to treat a complaint’s conclusions differently from allegations of fact. Facts, but not conclusions, are assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. The Court did little to help judges or lawyers understand this elusive distinction, and, indeed, obscured the distinction with its language. The Court said it was distinguishing “legal conclusions” from factual allegations. The application in Twombly and Iqbal, however, shows that the relevant distinction is not between law and fact, but rather between different types of factual assertions. This …

“Importing” Restrictions From One Federal Rule Of Evidence Provision To Another: The Limits Of Legitimate Contextual Interpretation In The Age Of Statutes, Edward J. Imwinkelried

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trust The Process: Understanding Procedural Standing Under Spokeo, Jon Romberg

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Filling The California Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

"President Donald Trump frequently argues that confirming federal appellate judges constitutes his quintessential success. The President and the Republican Senate majority have dramatically eclipsed appeals court records by appointing fifty-one conservative, young, and capable appellate court nominees, which leaves merely one vacancy across the country. Nonetheless, these approvals have imposed costs, especially among the plentiful district courts that address seventy-four openings in 677 judicial positions.

The most striking example is the four California districts, which realize seventeen pressing vacancies among sixty posts. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO), the federal judiciary’s administrative arm, designates all of them …

Filling The Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

"President Donald Trump’s major success has been confirming judges for the thirteen federal appellate courts. The President shattered records by appointing a dozen circuit jurists in his administration’s first year, eighteen judges over the course of 2018, and twenty additional judges throughout his third year. Indeed, by June 2019, the appeals courts experienced four vacancies in 179 judgeships and today, only one position remains empty. This achievement is critical, as these tribunals are the courts of last resort for nearly every appeal, and appellate court opinions articulate greater policy than district court rulings and cover multiple states.

However, that accomplishment …

Is The #Metoo Movement For Real? The Implications For Jurors’ Biases In Sexual Assault Cases, Mary Graw Leary

Scholarly Articles

This Article examines the emerging research on the #MeToo movement and its potential effects on the population of potential jurors, exploring the possibility of improving the jury pool in sexual assault cases. Part I discusses the current problem of attrition in sexual assault cases. Part II examines the substantial body of literature surrounding this attrition and the potential reasons for it. Part III explores the #MeToo movement and reviews the emerging body of research regarding it. Part III also considers whether the movement will impact juries positively or whether the attrition rates based on rape myths, misogyny, and rape culture …

Impact Of The Strict Scrutiny Standard Of Judicial Review On Abortion Legislation Under The Kansas Supreme Court’S Decision In Hodes & Nauser V. Schmidt, Elizabeth Kirk

Scholarly Articles

This paper is focused on a narrow matter, namely, the nature of the standard of judicial review adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt. 2 The most important (and decisive) point to emphasize is that the standard of judicial review adopted by the court in Hodes is so rigorous that it is likely to unsettle existing abortion law in Kansas and result in a legal landscape for abortion in this state that is more permissive of abortion than either the current federal standard or the original federal standard established by Roe v. Wade.

In order …

The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the Administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …

Communicating Punishment, Marah Stith Mcleod

Journal Articles

Does it matter whether convicted offenders understand why they are being punished? In the death penalty context, the Supreme Court has said yes; a prisoner who cannot understand the state's reasons for imposing a death sentence may not be executed. Outside of capital punishment, the answer is still open. This Article begins to fill that gap, focusing on why and how states should help all offenders make sense of their sanctions, whether imposed for retribution, for deterrence, for incapacitation, or for rehabilitation.

Judges today sometimes try to explain sentences to criminal offenders so that they know the purposes of their …

Restraining Judicial Application Of The "Safe Harbor" Provision In The Electoral Count Act, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

The Electoral Count Act of 1887, as codified in part at 3 U.S.C. § 5, includes a "safe harbor" for states to resolve disputes in their choices of presidential electors. Congress will treat as "conclusive" a "determination" about "any controversy or contest concerning the appointment" of presidential electors, if that determination is made "at least six days" before the time the electors are to meet. This is a rule governing how Congress handles "the counting of electoral votes as provided in the Constitution."

It is not a judicially-enforceable rule for courts to heed. And it is a rule that state …

#Metoo And Mass Incarceration, Aya Gruber

Publications

This Symposium Guest Editor’s Note is an adapted version of the Introduction to The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women’s Liberation in Mass Incarceration (UC Press 2020). The book examines how American feminists, in the quest to secure women’s protection from domestic violence and rape, often acted as soldiers in the war on crime by emphasizing white female victimhood, expanding the power of police and prosecutors, touting incarceration, and diverting resources toward law enforcement and away from marginalized communities Today, despite deep concerns over racist policing and mass incarceration, many feminists continue to assert that gender crime …

The Failure Of The Criminal Procedure Revolution, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.