Courts Commons^™

The Shadow Corroboration Doctrine In Sexual Violence Cases, Chris Cox

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Vs. Federal Prosecutors, Scott Ingram

Et Cetera

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court and federal prosecutors have waged an ongoing battle over statutory interpretation. As federal prosecutors have applied broad statutory interpretations to a variety of offenses, the Supreme Court, in a rare show of unanimity, have pushed back by interpreting the statutes narrowly. Throughout this process, the Supreme Court has employed a variety of rationales to support the narrow interpretations. Beginning with federalism concerns, the Court has more recently turned to fears about arbitrary and politically-motivated prosecutions. This article traces the evolution of this battle and concludes with insights about its future …

Third-Party Funding: Balancing Transparency, National Security, And Access To Justice, Victoria Shannon Sahani

Seattle University Law Review

Many lawmakers who have recently become aware of the multi-billion-dollar global third-party funding industry are raising new national security concerns that further complicate preexisting, longstanding debates about transparency, disclosure, access to justice, and the best way to regulate third-party funding. In response, this Article briefly asserts three main points relating to the question of how best to regulate third-party funding. First, this Article explains the third-party funding industry, including its global regulatory landscape and how it serves three distinct populations: consumers, businesses, and law firms. Second, this Article explains that third-party funding is one tool that can help expand access …

Remaking Rulemaking: Lessons From The History Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Brad Baranowski, Emery G. Lee Iii

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article uses the lost history of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to provide a framework for rulemaking at the busy intersection of complex litigation and appellate finality. The drafters of the original civil rules spent more time thinking through how to efficiently combine claims and parties in civil actions—a promised benefit of the proposed law-equity merger—than about how combined claims should be dis-assembled. This failure would haunt the original Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for years. Nowhere was this more evident than in the first decades of Rule 54(b)’s existence.

Promulgated in 1938, Rule 54(b) was designed to …

Calling On Congress: Use The Spending Clause To Keep Juveniles In Juvenile Court, Erin Fitzgerald

Pepperdine Law Review

Recently, juvenile justice reformers have had great success in expanding the reach of the juvenile court. Over the last two decades, many states have raised their age of majority, bringing older teens and young adults under the jurisdictional umbrella of the juvenile court. Likewise, many states have amended their transfer statutes, making transferring juveniles from juvenile court to adult criminal court more difficult. The success of these reforms is largely due to the relentless work of dedicated juvenile justice advocates and scholars. The “raise-the-age” movement and work to limit juvenile transfers has undoubtedly helped to retain more youthful offenders within …

Interpreting Congress, Joshua Ulan Galperin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article introduces the concept of congressional interpretation. Congressional interpretation describes a strategy on which the Supreme Court relies, but rarely acknowledges. It occurs when courts try to understand what the law is by looking beyond a specific statute, or even a specific statute’s legislative history, and instead turning to vague beliefs about congressional behavior. Courts use congressional interpretation to: understand the relationship between a substantive statute and subsequent appropriations; evaluate statutes on the basis of post-enactment congressional inaction; and impose assumptions about congressional norms through clear statement rules. For instance, a court considers whether Congress granted statutory authority when …

Administering Presidential Elections And Counting Electoral Votes After Trump V. Anderson, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

In the landmark case Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states lack the unilateral power to exclude presidential candidates from the ballot on the basis of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But while the Court was united in its essential holding, the Justices fractured in their reasoning, leaving significant questions about Congress's role in enforcing Section 3 against presidential candidates.

This Article examines the fault lines in Trump v. Anderson and analyzes how Congress's power to count electoral votes under the Twelfth Amendment intersects with its authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. …

Clearing Up The Confusion: A Three-Part Framework For Applying The Copyright Preemption Clause To Right Of Publicity Claims, Annie Seay

Emory Law Journal

To prevent conflicting state-law interests and federal copyright interests in a single claim, Congress enacted Section 301 of the Copyright Act of 1976—providing a two-prong test to determine when a state-law claim is preempted by federal copyright law. Though Section 301 appears to be a clear and simple test, it has proven to be anything but. Between 1986 and 2023, six of the thirteen circuit courts decided whether state-law right of publicity claims are preempted by federal copyright law using the Section 301 two-prong test, but each court’s analysis was vastly different from the other. Specifically, the Second, Third, Fifth, …

Professional Norms At A Crossroads: Farhane And Its Implications For Legal Counsel, Hayley Sandoval

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note examines the right to effective assistance of counsel during guilty pleas through the lens of the pending Second Circuit case Farhane v. United States. This case will have significant implications for the right to effective legal representation, particularly in terms of defense attorneys’ duty to warn clients of the potential risk of denaturalization as a consequence of pleading guilty. In May 2024, the court reheard Farhane en banc and will issue a decision later this year. If this opinion aligns with the court’s initial decision, it will severely limit the rights of all defendants in criminal proceedings in …

Examining The Effects Of Student Loan Forgiveness And The Christian Perspective, Sarah Rogers

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

On August 24, 2022, President Joe Biden announced his plan for federal student loan forgiveness. The program allows individuals who make less than $125,000 a year and families under $250,000 relieve up to $10,000 of their loan debt. Those who fall under the Pell Grant program are able to relieve up to $20,000 of their debt. The reactions to this “revolutionary” program were mixed. Typically, those who the program would directly affect were very enthusiastic about this idea while those, most notably Republicans, were less than thrilled. While the idea is good in theory, the execution of debt forgiveness will …

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

Scholarly Articles

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. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its 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 as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

House Rules: Congress And The Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in Trump v. Mazars establishing four factors for determining the validity of congressional subpoenas for a sitting president’s personal papers. In an unanticipated move, Chief Justice John Roberts added that recipients of congressional subpoenas have “long been understood” to retain not only constitutional privileges, but common law privileges developed by judges, including the attorney-client privilege. This was particularly surprising since Trump was not relying on the attorney-client privilege and the Court had never treated this common law privilege as overriding Congress’s Article I power to set its own procedures for conducting …

How Biden Began Building Back Better The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In October 2020, Democratic presidential nominee Joseph Biden famously expressed regret that the fifty-four accomplished, conservative, and young federal appellate court jurists and the 174 comparatively similar district court judges whom former– Republican President Donald Trump and the recent pair of analogous Grand Old Party Senate majorities in the 115th and 116th Congress appointed had left the courts of appeals and the district courts “out of whack.” Lamentable were the numerous detrimental ways in which President Trump and these Republican Senate majorities attempted to undercut the appeals courts and district courts, which actually constitute the tribunals of last resort in …

Antitrust Antitextualism, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Judges and scholars frequently describe antitrust as a common-law system predicated on open-textured statutes, but that description fails to capture a historically persistent phenomenon:judicial disregard of the plain meaning of the statutory texts and manifest purposes of Congress. This pattern of judicial nullification is not evenly distributed: when the courts have deviated from the plain meaning or congressional purpose, they have uniformly done so to limit the reach of antitrust liability or curtail the labor exemption to the benefit of industrial interests. This phenomenon cannot be explained solely or even primarily as a tug-of-war between a progressive Congress and conservative …

Of Arms And The Militia: Gun Regulation By Defining “Ordinary Military Equipment”, Edward J. Curtis

Touro Law Review

Recent mass shootings have placed pressure on Congress and state legislatures to regulate semi-automatic rifles and handguns in the interest of public safety. However, the Second Amendment provides that, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There is no obvious public safety exception.

Semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and other kinds of arms can be regulated more effectively by defining the “ordinary military equipment” militia members are expected to provide. This may be accomplished using the rationale employed by the United States …

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Presidential Progress On Climate Change: Will The Courts Interfere With What Needs To Be Done To Save Our Planet?, Michael B. Gerrard

Faculty Scholarship

The Biden Administration is undertaking numerous actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition away from fossil fuels as part of the fight against climate change. Many of these actions are likely to be challenged in court. This paper describes the various legal theories that are likely to be used in these challenges, assesses their prospects of success given the current composition of the Supreme Court, and suggests ways to minimize the risks.

An Unfair Cross Section: Federal Jurisdiction For Indian Country Crimes Dismantles Jury Community Conscience, Alana Paris

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal jury pools must reflect a fair cross section of the community in which a crime is prosecuted and from which no distinct group in the community is excluded. The community in which a crime is prosecuted varies widely in Indian country based on legislative reforms enacted by Congress to strip indigenous populations of their inherent sovereignty. Under the Major Crimes Act, the federal government has the right to adjudicate all serious crimes committed by one American Indian against another American Indian or non-Indian within Indian country. American Indian defendants under …

Possible Reliance: Protecting Legally Innocent Johnson Claimants, Keagan Potts

Michigan Law Review

The writ of habeas corpus presents the last chance for innocent defendants to obtain relief from invalid convictions and sentences. The writ constitutes a limited exception to the finality of judgments. Given the role finality plays in conserving judicial resources and deterring criminal conduct, exceptions created by habeas must be principally circumscribed. Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States, the federal courts of appeals have attempted to develop a test that protects the writ from abuse by Johnson claimants.

This Note first contributes a new understanding of the …

A False Sense Of Security: How Congress And The Sec Are Dropping The Ball On Cryptocurrency, Tessa E. Shurr

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today, companies use blockchain technology and digital assets for a variety of purposes. This Comment analyzes the digital token. If the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) views a digital token as a security, then the issuer of the digital token must comply with the registration and extensive disclosure requirements of federal securities laws.

To determine whether a digital asset is a security, the SEC relies on the test that the Supreme Court established in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Rather than enforcing a statute or agency rule, the SEC enforces securities laws by applying the Howey test on a fact-intensive …

Lawful Permanent Residency: A Potential Solution For Temporary Protected Status Holders In The Eastern District Of New York, Cody M. Gecht

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules To Impeach By - What It Takes To Remove A President, David Dittfurth

Faculty Articles

Professor David Dittfurth explains the steps that must be taken by Congress to impeach a president or other official.

Mixed Signals: What Can We Expect From The Supreme Court In This Post-Ada Amendments Act Era?, Nicole Buonocore Porter

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.

This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …

Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In this Essay, I argue that originalism conflicts with the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence defining the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the standard established in Boerne v. Flores, the Court limits congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to statutory remedies premised on judicially defined interpretations of Fourteenth Amendment rights. A commitment to originalism as a method of judicial constitutional interpretation challenges the premise of judicial interpretive supremacy in Section 5 jurisprudence in two ways. First, as a matter of history, an originalist reading of Section 5 provides support for broad judicial …

The Legacy Of Judge Frank M. Coffin, Peter R. Pitegoff

Maine Law Review

Judge Coffin had adopted the University of Maine School of Law as if it were his own. He was a committed friend to the Law School and served on the advisory Board of Visitors for almost two decades. Like so many others, I felt his keen personal commitment as well, with his periodic calls and visits, his steady counsel and encouragement. Before arriving in Maine, I had known of Judge Coffin. Little did I anticipate that he would so enrich my experience as Dean at Maine Law. He remains a role model to so many of our graduates and leaves …

Making Treaty Implementation More Like Statutory Implementation, Jean Galbraith

Michigan Law Review

Both statutes and treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” and yet quite different practices have developed with respect to their implementation. For statutes, all three branches have embraced the development of administrative law, which allows the executive branch to translate broad statutory directives into enforceable obligations. But for treaties, there is a far more cumbersome process. Unless a treaty provision contains language that courts interpret to be directly enforceable, they will deem it to require implementing legislation from Congress. This Article explores and challenges the perplexing disparity between the administration of statutes and treaties. It shows that the …

Original Intent: Understanding The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction In Controversies Between States, Kristen A. Linsley

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Gibbons Fallacy, Richard A. Primus

Articles

In Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall famously wrote that "the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated." Modern courts use that phrase to mean that the Constitutions enumeration of congressional powers indicates that those powers are, as a whole, less than a grant of general legislative authority. But Marshall wasn't saying that. He wasn't talking about the Constitution's overall enumeration of congressional powers at all. He was writing about a different enumeration - the enumeration of three classes of commerce within the Commerce Clause. And Marshall's analysis of the Commerce Clause in Gibbons does not imply that the enumerated …