Courts Commons^™

Deepfakes In Court: How Judges Can Proactively Manage Alleged Ai-Generated Material In National Security Cases, Abhishek Dalal, Chongyang Gao, Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman, Daniel W. Linna Jr., Chiara Pulice, V. S. Subrahmanian, John Tunheim

Faculty Scholarship

Dall-E. ChatGPT GPT-4. Words that did not exist in the English lexicon just a few years ago are now commonplace. With the widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, specifically Generative AI, whether in the context of text, audio, video, imagery, or even combinations of these, it is inevitable that trials related to national security will involve evidentiary issues raised by Generative AI. We must confront two possibilities: first, that evidence presented is AI-generated and not real and, second, that other evidence is genuine but alleged to be fabricated. Technologies designed to detect AI-generated content have proven to be unreliable, …

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy

The United States bureaucracy began as only four departments and has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these bureaucratic agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founding Fathers’ design of balancing legislative power in a bicameral Congress.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of executive agencies, yet the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted voters’ voices. Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense …

Holistic Claim Construction, Lidiya Mishchenko

Cardozo Law Review

Jurisprudence in the area of defining patent scope is opaque and inconsistent. District courts and litigants cannot be certain of the bounds of the exclusive territory covered by a patent—defined by the patent’s claims—until the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—the single patent appellate court in the nation—says what it is in an appeal after final judgement. The appellate court appears to simply redo the analysis of the district courts, yet often inexplicably reaches a different conclusion based on the patent’s text. Though much has been written about the Federal Circuit’s unpredictable, textualist approach to claim construction, no scholarship …

Jefferson's Ghost: The Local Action Rule In Federal Courts, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

Cardozo Law Review

The local action rule required that certain actions concerning real property be adjudicated in the federal court in the state (and perhaps the district) containing the property. This rule had been apart of the law of the United States since the early days of the nation. In 2011, Congress eliminated the local action rule as a matter of venue. But some courts have held that the local action rule pertains to subject matter jurisdiction, not merely venue, and that it survived Congress's elimination of the venue aspect of the rule. This is wrong as to cases in federal court involving …

Tracing The Roots Of A Poisonous Tree: On The Origins And Impact Of Criminal Terminology In A Civil Apprehension Scheme, Shani Mahiri King, Nicole Silvestri Hall

Articles (Current Faculty)

Language is powerful. It can affect how we think about and treat groups of people. Poor language choices have a massive impact on immigration law, an area of the law that determines how groups of perceived “outsiders” are classified and regulated. Language and bias in judicial opinions have been studied, but less research has been done on poor language choices in immigration statutes.

This Comment focuses on the harmful effects of poor language choices in immigration statutes, including the criminal terminology “arrest” and “warrant” in civil immigration apprehension statutes 8 U.S.C. Sections 1226 and 1357. Two fundamental problems arise when …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Although only four departments at the United States’ founding, the American bureaucracy has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight through monetary allowance and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founders’ design of legislative power vested solely in a bicameral legislature.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of bureaucratic agencies. However, despite their obligation to protect the rights of the American people, the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted …

Aesthetics Of Slavery & Slave Trade Crimes, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

Articles

In his insightful new book, Invisible Atrocities, Randle DeFalco examines the aesthetic biases of international criminal law (ICL). DeFalco astutely argues that ICL prioritizes punishing "horrific spectacles" of violence while ignoring less visible, attritive forms of violence that cause similar levels of harm and suffering, generally over longer periods of time. While ICL is selective in its preference for "horrific spectacles," even the spectacular violence has been rendered invisible in ICL when inconvenient factual evidence counters dominant narratives in international law.

One such dominant narrative is the successful abolition of slavery and the slave trade of the nineteenth and twentieth …

Battling Batson: State V. Andujar And New Jersey's Efforts To Fix A Broken Doctrine, Eli Shahar

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right For Any Reason, Jeffrey M. Anderson

Cardozo Law Review

The chances of winning an appeal in federal court are slim. One reason for that is an array of rules of appellate review that “stack the deck” in favor of the appellee and the lower court’s judgment. One such rule of review is “right for any reason,” the rule that an appellee may defend a lower court’s judgment on any grounds supported by the record—even grounds that the lower court rejected or ignored. The judgment may be right, even if the reasons are wrong. In 1924, the Supreme Court described the rule as “settled”—and felt no need to cite authority …

Mississippi V. Tennessee, Jackson W. Welsh

Tennessee Law Review

The Supreme Court's decision in Mississippi v. Tennessee quietly marked a potential turning point for the once antiquated doctrine of equitable apportionment. This doctrine provides a framework for resolving disputes over the allocation of resources, usually water, that cross state boundaries, and has done so since the early 20th century. In this article, we will delve into the history of equitable apportionment, examining its evolution from 1907 to the present day. We explore the key cases that have slowly broadened the doctrine, with a particular focus on Mississippi v. Tennessee and its implications for the future of equitable apportionment. Through …

There Is No Such Thing As Circuit Law, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Lawyers and judges often talk about “the law of the circuit,” meaning the set of legal rules that apply within a particular federal judicial circuit. Seasoned practitioners are steeped in circuit law, it is said. Some courts have imagined that they confront a choice between applying the law of one circuit or another. In its strong form, this idea of circuit law implies that each circuit creates and interprets its own body of substantive law that is uniquely applicable to disputes that arise within the circuit’s borders.

This article argues that the notion of circuit law is nonsensical and undesirable …

Maintaining Due Process By Extending Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. To Federal Class Actions, Felicia D. Sych

American University Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, subsequently altering the scope of personal jurisdiction and further narrowing its interpretation of specific jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. held that a state court can only assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant when there is a meaningful nexus between the forum state and the claims at issue. The Court purposefully refrained from deciding whether its holding applies to federal courts adjudicating federal class actions. After denying a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the issue in 2021, the question …

A Synthesis Of The Science And Law Relating To Eyewitness Misidentifications And Recommendations For How Police And Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based On Them, Henry F. Fradella

Seattle University Law Review

The empirical literature on perception and memory consistently demonstrates the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications. Exoneration data lend external validity to these studies. With the goal of informing law enforcement officers, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and judicial law clerks about what they can do to reduce wrongful convictions based on misidentifications, this Article presents a synthesis of the scientific knowledge relevant to how perception and memory affect the (un)reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Article situates that body of knowledge within the context of leading case law. The Article then summarizes the most current recommendations for how law enforcement personnel should—and …

The Disability Docket, Jasmine E. Harris, Karen M. Tani, Shira Wakschlag

American University Law Review

The monumental changes emanating from the contemporary Supreme Court have now generated abundant commentary—but it remains possible to glean new insights if we review the Court’s work from an alternative perspective, one that does not often inform mainstream accounts. Drawing on insights from Disability Legal Studies and other critical approaches to law, as well as from the trenches of disability advocacy and civil litigation, this Article applies a “disability lens” to the Supreme Court’s 2021 and 2022 Terms. Our review of the Court’s published decisions and broader docket suggests three themes. We highlight (1) the role of disability cases in …

The Federal Circuit: A Microcosm Of Changes In The Legal Landscape, Jimmie V. Reyna

American University Law Review

On April 2, 1982, Congress established the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit through the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals with the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. The Federal Circuit has just surpassed forty years of appellate jurisprudence.

The Judicial Activism Of Justice Anthony Kennedy, Carlos A. Ball

American University Law Review

Few recent Supreme Court justices have had a greater impact on constitutional law than Anthony Kennedy. Although commentators have explored the substance of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence in some detail, legal scholars have not systematically analyzed the extent of his judicial activism. This Article uses the term “judicial activism” descriptively rather than normatively to help account for a judge’s willingness to strike down federal, state, and local laws on constitutional grounds. It finds that, under a descriptive definition, when compared to the justices with whom he served, Justice Kennedy was a singularly judicial activist judge.

This conclusion rests on three findings. …

Theorizing Corroboration, Maggie Wittlin

Faculty Scholarship

A child makes an out-of-court statement accusing an adult of abuse. That statement is important proof, but it also presents serious reliability concerns. When deciding whether it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, should a court consider whether the child’s statement is corroborated—whether, for example, there is medical evidence of abuse? More broadly, should courts consider corroboration when deciding whether evidence is reliable enough to be admitted at trial? Judges, rule-makers, and scholars have taken significantly divergent approaches to this question and come to different conclusions.

This Article argues that there is a key problem with using corroboration to evaluate …

"How Exactly Does It Get Done Here?" Conducting Cross-Jurisdictional Research With Judges And Court Staff, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

The legal, political, and organizational environment in which judges and court staff work affects their performance in significant ways. To ensure that researchers control for these effects, it is critical that they take sufficient time in the research design phase to identify relevant factors that might complicate their analyses or distort the interpretation of research findings. This article highlights common challenges of multijurisdictional research, including inconsistent use of terminology, differing organizational structures and procedures, and exogenous factors such as court governance, policymaking authority, funding, and local court culture. It also offers guidance to researchers on identifying and integrating these factors …

The Public Defender Movement In The Age Of Mass Incarceration: Georgia's Experience, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

Focusing on the efforts of the Southern Center for Human Rights, this article offers a grassroots history of the creation of the first statewide public defender in the State of Georgia in 2003. Whereas federal court litigation to improve indigent defense failed to achieve lasting reform, a shift in tactics toward “rebellious localism,” characterized by state court lawsuits against county and city officials, succeeded in prodding lawmakers to create a new framework for delivering legal services to indigent defendants. This model of legal change was effective in documenting structural flaws and creating momentum for reform. Yet other conditions—such as front-end …

Sounds Of Silence: A Thematic Analysis Of Victim Impact Statements, Tali Gal, Ruthy Lowenstein Lazar

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Victim Impact Statement (VIS) is a legal document that crime victims submit to the court as part of the sentencing stage, informing the court about the harms they have suffered. The VIS enhances victims’ sense of procedural justice, voice, and inclusion in the process, as well as their overall wellbeing. At the same time, their use raises concern about defendants’ due process rights. The Article argues that VISs make a novel contribution to the criminal proceeding, beyond their formal goals of providing information to the court about the impact of the crime on its victims. Using a thematic analysis …

Judicial Independence And The Rule Of Law, D. Brooks Smith

Lewis & Clark Law Review

No abstract provided.

Changemakers: Elevating Conversations Around Indigenous Peoples' Rights, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

American University Law Review Keynote Address, Erwin Chemerinsky

American University Law Review

My talk this morning focuses on the agenda of the current Roberts Court. I think that every Supreme Court can be said to have an agenda. Sometimes it seems conscious and deliberate, apparent from the outset. Sometimes it seems to evolve and only becomes obvious later.

The Purcell Principle And The Antiblackness Of Constitutional Fundamentalism, Brittany Carter

American University Law Review

In Milligan v. Merrill, a district court in Alabama found that the state legislature designed Alabama’s new congressional district map in a way that diminished Black political power, and ordered the legislature to redraw its map to remedy the violation. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order, allowing Alabama’s congressional elections to proceed under the discriminatory maps. The only stated rationale, offered by Justices Kavanaugh and Alito in a concurring opinion, was the so-called Purcell principle – the notion that federal courts should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election. …

The Absurd Reach Of A "Colorblind" Constitution, David Hinojosa, Genevieve Bonadies Torres

American University Law Review

Affirmative action has long spurred debates over whether the Equal Protection Clause and subsequent civil rights legislation were intended to permit policies aimed at disrupting racial hierarchies, dismantling systemic discrimination, and ensuring equal opportunity for Black people and other historically marginalized groups. The current lawsuits pending before the Supreme Court challenging affirmative action admissions programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) and Harvard College are no exception. Like prior lawsuits, the plaintiff in both cases—Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”)—and its amici seek to turn back the clock on racial diversity at selective universities by urging the …

When Amicus Curiae Briefs Are Inimicus Curiae Briefs: Amicus Curiae Briefs And The Bypassing Of Admissibility Standards, David Dematteo, Kellie Wiltsie

American University Law Review

Amicus curiae briefs are being submitted at historically high levels by a range of individuals and entities, and there is compelling evidence that these briefs are highly influential in judicial decision-making, including in the Supreme Court of the United States. Although amicus curiae briefs have been an ingrained aspect of the U.S. legal system for hundred-plus years, various legal scholars, researchers, commentators, and judges, including Supreme Court Justices, have raised concerns about their use, including that amicus curiae briefs contain redundant information and often function as advocacy tools. This Article addresses an aspect of amicus curiae briefs that has received …

Views Of The Irish Judiciary On Technology In Courts: Results Of A Survey, Brian M. Barry Dr, Rónán Kennedy Dr

Articles

Technology continues to transform how judges perform their functions, both in Ireland and elsewhere. This article reports the results of a survey of Irish judges on their use of technology in their role, their attitudes towards technology, and their views on how it impacts on the judicial function. The survey, part of a global survey, found that Irish judges habitually used digital technologies, and were broadly satisfied with the technology available in chambers, but less so with what was provided in courtrooms. Although generally happy to embrace change, the majority of respondents were concerned with, and did not prefer, online …

Race-Ing Antitrust, I. Bennett Capers, Gregory Day

Faculty Scholarship

Antitrust law has a race problem. To spot an antitrust violation, courts inquire into whether an act has degraded consumer welfare. Since anticompetitive practices are often assumed to enhance consumer welfare, antitrust offenses are rarely found. Key to this framework is that antitrust treats all consumers monolithically; that consumers are differently situated, especially along lines of race, simply is ignored.

We argue that antitrust law must disaggregate the term “consumer” to include those who disproportionately suffer from anticompetitive practices via a community welfare standard. As a starting point, we demonstrate that anticompetitive conduct has specifically been used as a tool …

Reviewing Mixed Questions Of Fact And Law In Administrative Adjudications: Why Courts Should Move To “Substantially Established Facts”, Gwendolyn Savitz

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

Courts are inconsistent in how they review mixed questions of fact and law in administrative adjudications. Many courts simply and unquestioningly review the entire mixed issue using only substantial evidence review. This grants extreme and unquestioning deference to any legal interpretation used by the agency, far more than would be available to it under the increasingly besieged Chevron doctrine, despite the fact that the adjudications being reviewed in this manner generally would not even be entitled to Chevron deference if the legal component of the mixed question were analyzed separately. Courts should therefore analyze the different components of a mixed …