Courts Commons^™

Overseeing The Administrative State, Jill E. Fisch

Seattle University Law Review

In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has reduced the regulatory power of the Administrative State. Pending cases offer vehicles for the Court to go still further. Although the Court’s skepticism of administrative agencies may be rooted in Constitutional principles or political expediency, this Article explores another possible explanation—a shift in the nature of agencies and their regulatory role. As Pritchard and Thompson detail in their important book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was initially skeptical of agency power, jeopardizing Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)’s ambitious New Deal plan. The Court’s acceptance …

The Sec, The Supreme Court, And The Administrative State, Paul G. Mahoney

Seattle University Law Review

Pritchard and Thompson have given those of us who study the SEC and the securities laws much food for thought. Their methodological focus is on the internal dynamics of the Court’s deliberations, on which they have done detailed and valuable work. The Court did not, however, operate in a vacuum. Intellectual trends in economics and law over the past century can also help us understand the SEC’s fortunes in the federal courts and make predictions about its future.

A Hard Pill To Swallow: The Abysmal Mental Health Standards Of Detained Immigrant Children In The United States, Rama Bankesly

Seattle University Law Review

After setting foot into the U.S., unaccompanied children must learn to navigate academic and legal systems while receiving little support and carrying the heavy burden of effects of trauma on their mental health. They need access to mental health care from qualified professionals, but as this Comment will explain, they systematically fail to receive care, as can be seen in cases like Doe v. Shenandoah Valley Juv. Ctr. Comm’n. In Shenandoah, an unaccompanied child arrived in the U.S. and was placed in a facility that failed to provide remotely adequate mental health care and in fact was subjected …

Shades Of Justice: Exploring Colorism In The Hispanic Community And Its Legal Battle For Equity, Christel A. Infante

Honors Undergraduate Theses

This thesis focuses on the racial disparity within the Hispanic and Latinx communities as injustices exist within the community and the workplace. Racial disparities in the United States have been a persistent and deeply rooted issue that has plagued the nation for centuries. Despite significant progress in civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, disparities in areas such as education, employment, and criminal justice persist. Understanding the factors contributing to these disparities is essential for addressing systemic inequalities and fostering a more just society. The analysis of this thesis primarily focuses on the cases and ramifications of Hispanic persons within the workplace, …

Fair Cross Section And Tribal Jury Composition: Vawa 2022 Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Series, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Steve Aycock

Faculty Publications

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013) amended the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to ensure that non-Indian criminal defendants in Tribal courts have the right to a trial by an impartial jury that is drawn from sources that 1) “reflect a fair cross section of the community” and 2) “do not systematically exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians.” This requirement applies when a non-Indian who is criminally prosecuted in Tribal court faces possible imprisonment.

The implementation of these jury provisions has been a topic of discussion among the Inter-Tribal Working Group on Special …

The Supreme Court And The Challenges For Fiscal Federalism: Mineral Area Development Authority V Steel Authority Of India, Sanyukta Chowdhury, Amit Chowdhury

National Law School Journal

This case comment analyses the 2024 Supreme Court judgement in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India, in which the court upheld the states’ power to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. The authors discuss the issues involved, the approach of the bench towards interpretation, and the implications for the parties to the case and other stakeholders. They argue that while fiscal federalism is crucial to India’s constitutional scheme, the bench had limited leeway in deciding the case on this basis due to the absence of legal, doctrinal, and factual clarity.

The Vanishing Appeal?, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Kirk Randazzo

Scholarship@WashULaw

Appellate filings in the United States Courts of Appeals demonstrate a considerable decline since 2006, following an historical trend in increasing caseloads throughout the twentieth century and early parts of the twenty-first. This phenomenon deserves evaluation. In this Article, we demonstrate the trend using data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and advance a number of potential hypotheses that might assist in explaining the trend, including decreasing trial rates, unique case type and circuit variations, trends in pro se litigation, and political explanations. Ultimately, the trend in case filings in the federal appellate courts is likely the product …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

The Sociology Of Bail Reform: Crime, Social Interaction, And Offender Experiences In Rurality., Scott Kevin Turner

Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports (ETD)

The study sought to explore the impact of the New York State “Bail Reform Act of 2019,” in rurality. It examined some of the legislative goals of the law, the claim that it caused crime, and offender experiences in rurality. Secondary data was used to map the rural crime landscape and primary data was collected from offenders during face to face interviews. The study was framed using deterrence and opportunity approaches and situated within the broader field environments; legislative, courtroom, and community. The research failed to find support for the claim that bail reform caused crime. Instead, it revealed that …

One Size Does Fit All: A Quasi-Federal Solution To The Euro-Centric Structural Shortcomings Of The Icc, Anivesh Bharadwaj

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The article critiques the International Criminal Court's (ICC) centralized structure in The Hague, arguing that it undermines transparency, accessibility, and legitimacy, particularly for victims and witnesses in remote regions. The author proposes a "quasi-federal" framework to decentralize the Court, enabling regional proceedings while maintaining a central Appeals Chamber and Presidency. This restructuring aims to address structural flaws, enhance deterrence, and improve justice delivery by bringing proceedings closer to affected communities.

Appoint Judge Ana De Alba To The Ninth Circuit, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

The United States Senate must rapidly appoint Eastern District of California Judge Ana de Alba to the Ninth Circuit. This appellate tribunal is a preeminent regional circuit, which faces substantial appeals, has the largest complement of jurists, and clearly includes a massive geographic expanse. The nominee, whom President Joe Biden designated in spring 2023, would offer remarkable gender, experiential, ideological, and ethnic diversity realized primarily from serving productively with the California federal district, and state trial, courts after rigorously litigating for one decade in a highly regarded private law firm. For over fifteen years, she deftly excelled in law’s upper …

Criminal Courteaucracy, Evelyn Malavé

Faculty Publications

Scholars have increasingly recognized that criminal courts in the age of mass incarceration, particularly lower criminal courts, have effectively shifted from an adjudicatory system of justice to a managerial system of justice. Rather than adjudicating guilt or innocence, criminal courts are engaged in risk management and social control. However, literature on criminal courts has almost exclusively focused on judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and their roles in the adjudication of criminal cases. This Article will focus instead on the managerial function of criminal courts by shining a spotlight on a less-scrutinized set of actors: criminal-court administrators.

Through an in-depth case …

The Right To Trial By Jury Shall Remain Inviolate: Jury Trials In Civil Actions In Georgia’S Courts, David E. Shipley

Scholarly Works

Trials, though rare, “shape almost every aspect of procedure,” and the jury trial is a distinctive feature of civil litigation in the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ‘preserves’ the right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” Even though this amendment does not apply to the states, courts in the states “honor the right to the extent it is created in their constitutions or local statutes.”

The Georgia Constitution provides that “[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and Georgia’s appellate courts have shown …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Standing For Elections In State Courts, Miriam Seifter, Adam B. Sopko

Publications

Litigation has become a fixture of electoral contests. Litigants today often challenge every step of an election, from the results themselves to picayune aspects of administration. In response to this deluge, some courts have rejected election lawsuits on standing grounds. Such rulings may be unsurprising in federal court, given the tension between the federal standing doctrine's injury requirements and the generalized nature of many election disputes. But most recent election cases take place in state court, where neither Article III nor the premises animating federal standing doctrine apply. State courts need election justiciability theories of their own.

This Article explores …

The Perilous Focus Shift From The Rule Of Law To Appellate Efficiency, Elizabeth Lee Thompson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Among the most significant—and by some estimations the most controversial—transformations of the federal appellate system occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s with effects still felt today: the shift from oral argument for all appeals and the view that study and disposition of each appeal were exclusively judicial tasks to the adoption of a tiered appellate system where the great majority of appeals receive no oral argument and instead summary disposition often involving staff attorneys. These transformative internal efficiency procedures have been subject to intense debate. Proponents have praised their efficiency and ability to avoid a backlog while critics complain …

The Emerging Constitutional Law Of Remote Criminal Justice, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The COVID-19 pandemic compelled courts to experiment with a novel mode of criminal process: conducting proceedings via video. The remote format helped protect public health during the pandemic, and its convenience has led many states to continue using it in certain circumstances. Yet questions about its desirability and constitutionality have lingered, and many are concerned that it undermines the justice and integrity of criminal proceedings. As the future of remote criminal justice is up for debate, it is important to assess to what degree it complies with fundamental constitutional principles. To that end, this Article offers a comprehensive analysis of …

Reimagining The Inclusive Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, everyday life for many Americans was upended. And yet, the jury trial remained viable — even vital. Faced with an era-defining public health disaster, courts innovated, embracing novel technologies and techniques to reimagine where and how justice might be made. But why did it take a pandemic to spur this kind of institutional creativity? Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, people who were otherwise eligible to participate as jurors were routinely — and uncontroversially — struck or exempted from service due to limited mobility, vision and hearing loss, and caregiving responsibilities. Recent experience …

Michigan Senators' Crucial Role In Keeping Federal Courts Full, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

One critical responsibility that the American Constitution assigns senators is the provision of comprehensive advice and consent respecting accomplished federal judicial candidates suggested by the President to serve, particularly in their home states. Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is completing her fourth term representing Michigan, has always joined with her colleague Democratic Senator Gary Peters in the administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to astutely discharge this crucial responsibility. Stabenow and Peters exercised sound judgment, intelligence, hard work, and keen appreciation for the distinct roles that the Constitution accords the President and senators in the confirmation …

Judges And The Regulatory State: Trends Of Resistance And Restraint, Luke P. Norris

Law Faculty Publications

The last great confrontation between courts and the regulatory state occurred at the turn of the previous century. As courts in the first decades of the twentieth century resisted regulatory laws designed to protect workers and curb market excesses, they sustained broad legal and public critique, including claims that they were guardians of corporate power and monied and propertied interests. The showdown, as is familiar fare, was seemingly resolved in the New Deal, with the Supreme Court and judiciary largely accepting the constitutionality of federal and state regulatory laws. The compromise that emerged, dubbed the “New Deal settlement,” ostensibly called …

Problem-Solving Courts And The Outcome Oversight Gap, Erin R. Collins

Law Faculty Publications

Drug courts-and the litany of other problem-solving courts that soon followed in their wake-began as a series of small-scale judicial experiments in criminal punishment reform. They were earnest efforts by criminal court judges to redress an issue that they were well-equipped to see: many people were returning to their courtrooms time and again, often for low-level drug charges, and at a time when court dockets were ballooning because of tough-on-crime arrest and prosecution policies. Early drug court judges combined their power to punish with their authority to control their dockets to create specialized court calendars aimed at providing substance abuse …

Trademark Fair Use Is No Joke, Christine Haight Farley

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products, arguing that the Court missed an opportunity to clarify the relationship between trademark law and the First Amendment. While the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting parodies, it failed to develop a comprehensive framework for balancing trademark rights with free speech. Instead, it introduced a narrow rule that limits the application of the Rogers test, potentially undermining speech protections in trademark disputes. The article contends that the Court's reliance on the likelihood of confusion test is insufficient to address the broader First Amendment implications of …

Barrier Breakers: Celebrating The Rhode Island Supreme Court’S First Female Majority, Kailey E. Chalmers

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Andy Warhol To Barbie: Copyright’S Fair Use Doctrine After Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Christian Domination, Ruth Colker

American University Law Review

It is hard to deny that the United States is a Christian nation despite the First Amendment’s promise that the legislature will not establish a religion. The United States is not a Christian nation merely because of the religious beliefs that many people privately hold. It is a Christian nation, in part, because the courts and legislatures have facilitated that development. Moreover, as this Article will argue, Christian favoritism within the political and legal system has developed in sharp contrast to the treatment of Black people, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled people.

This Article explores the development of Christian …

Review Of Veterans Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit 2022-2023 Edition, Yelena Duterte, Hugh Mcclean, Stacey-Rae Simcox

American University Law Review

In 2022 to 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) continued its conversation with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), and veterans to help sculpt the jurisprudence coming from the youngest of the federal courts, the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence addressed ten main legal issues: class actions, petitions for writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, defining standards of proof with the term “results from,” the benefit of the doubt doctrine post-Lynch, education benefits, less than honorable discharges, the rating schedule, implicit denials, equitable …

A Year In Review: The Federal Circuit's 2023 Government Contract Law Decisions, Sophie Marsh, Taylor Mcdaniels, Allison Moors

American University Law Review

This Article continues previous in-depth reviews of government contract law cases decided by the Federal Circuit and published by the American University Law Review. In 2023, the Federal Circuit clarified the appropriate standard of review, emphasizing that, more likely than not, the Boards of Contract Appeals should apply a de novo standard of review. Additionally, the court set significant judicial precedent by holding that the issues of party standing, timely raising a solicitation defect, and asserting a sum certain are nonjurisdictional. Finally, the court also issued decisions concerning implied-in-fact contracts, excusable delays, and the importance of reporting unallowable costs.

Litigating Original Meaning From Heller To Rahimi: The Role Of Lawyering In The Confused Path Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Lawrence Rosenthal

American University Law Review

The Second Amendment is on a jurisprudential march. An individual right to “keep and bear arms” for purposes unrelated to militia or military service was not recognized until the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, applying what it took to be the original meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” found in the Second Amendment, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Subsequently, the Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, invalidated a statute requiring a permit to carry concealable firearms on a showing of particularized need. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, …

The Downstream Consequences Of Transunion Llc V. Ramirez: Why 5 U.S.C. § 2954 Plaintiffs Have Article Iii Standing Consistent With Lower Courts’ Interpretation Of Transunion, Erin Mccoy

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, created additional standing hurdles by requiring plaintiffs to identify a common law historic-analogue when alleging a statutory harm. In doing so, the Court arguably limited informational standing—a unique Article III standing theory whereby plaintiffs may establish an injury for failure to receive information—because informational injuries did not exist at common law.

This Comment asks whether informational standing survives in a post-TransUnion universe, using 5 U.S.C. § 2954 and lower courts’ interpretation of TransUnion for guidance. The statute, § 2954, comes to light in a string of litigation involving the potential illegality …

Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

“[T]he legislative, executive, and judicial powers, of every well-constructed government, are co-extensive with each other . . . [T]he judicial department may receive from the Legislature the power of construing any . . . law [which the Legislature may constitutionally make].” Chief Justice Marshall relied on this axiom in Osborn v. Bank of the United States to stress the breadth of the federal judicial power: The federal courts must have the potential power to adjudicate any claim based on any law Congress has the power to enact. In recent years, however, the axiom has sometimes operated in the opposite direction: …