Judges Commons^™

Historical Antecedents Of Challenges Facing The Georgia Appellate Courts, Michael B. Terry

Georgia State University Law Review

The Georgia appellate courts face challenges common to many courts in these days of reduced governmental resources. At the same time, the Georgia appellate courts face unusual challenges that can be traced to their historical antecedents and one unique constitutional provision: the “Two-Term Rule.” Just as “[t]he law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries,” the current rules and practices of both the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Court of Appeals of Georgia embody the story of the development of those courts since their founding.

Several aspects of the history of the courts directly impact the …

The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Second Department, Smith V. Marrus, Elaine Yang

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does Religion Have A Role In Criminal Sentencing?, Jack B. Weinstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When A U.S. Domestic Court Can Enjoin A Foreign Court Proceeding, Samantha Koeninger, Richard Bales

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

A federal court, at its discretion, may enjoin a parallel proceeding in a foreign court. Currently, there is a split among the federal courts of appeals as to the circumstances under which an anti-suit injunction should be granted. The Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the "liberal approach." These courts have found that a court may enjoin a foreign proceeding if the parallel litigation is vexatious and duplicative. In contrast, the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have adopted the "restrictive approach." These courts require a higher standard, and have found that if the parallel litigation is …

Analogical Legal Reasoning: Theory And Evidence, Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The paper offers a formal model of analogical legal reasoning and takes the model to data. Under the model, the outcome of a new case is a weighted average of the outcomes of prior cases. The weights capture precedential influence and depend on fact similarity (distance in fact space) and precedential authority (position in the judicial hierarchy). The empirical analysis suggests that the model is a plausible model for the time series of U.S. maritime salvage cases. Moreover, the results evince that prior cases decided by inferior courts have less influence than prior cases decided by superior courts.

The Politics Of Statutory Interpretation, Margaret H. Lemos

Notre Dame Law Review

In a new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner describe and defend the textualist methodology for which Justice Scalia is famous. For Scalia and Garner, the normative appeal of textualism lies in its objectivity: by focusing on text, context, and canons of construction, textualism offers protection against ideological judging—a way to separate law from politics. Yet, as Scalia and Garner well know, textualism is widely regarded as a politically conservative methodology. The charge of conservative bias is more common than it is concrete, but it reflects the notion that textualism narrows the …

Behind The U.S. Reports: Justice Brennan's Unpublished Opinions And Memoranda In New York Times V. Sullivan And Its Progeny, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The contributions Justice William J. Brennan Jr. made to free expression in general and the law of libel in particular are unquestioned. His opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and cases that followed established sturdy protection for critics of public officials and helped further the marketplace of ideas that is so important for public discourse. Justice Brennan wrote thousands of words about Sullivan and its impact that never appeared in published opinions, however. Often he was required to alter his writings to accommodate the views of other justices needed for a majority. Those unpublished opinions – and memoranda …

Institutional Stress And The Federal District Courts: Judicial Emergencies, Vertical Norms, And Pretrial Dismissals, Daniel J. Knudsen

Utah Law Review

This Article examines the effects of judicial emergencies on the federal district courts. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declares judicial emergencies when a weighted statistic of filings and vacancy days exceeds certain thresholds. This Article presents evidence on the relationship between emergency status in a judicial circuit and the frequency of pretrial disposition in federal district courts within that circuit: a federal district court is statistically more likely to dismiss a case before trial if its corresponding circuit court is in emergency. This evidence suggests that emergency status may affect normative expectations between the federal district courts and …

The Danger Of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How The Southern District Of New York's "Related Cases" Rule Shaped Stop-And-Frisk Rulings, Katherine A. Macfarlane

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

The Southern District of New York’s local rules are clear: “[A]ll active judges . . . shall be assigned substantially an equal share of the categories of cases of the court over a period of time.” Yet for the past fourteen years, Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has been granted near-exclusive jurisdiction over one category of case: those involving wide-sweeping constitutional challenges to the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) stop-and-frisk policies. In 1999, Judge Scheindlin was randomly assigned Daniels v. City of New York, the first in a series of high-profile and high-impact stop-and-frisk cases. Since then, she has overseen …

What Reversals And Close Cases Reveal About Claim Construction: The Sequel, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 525 (2014), Thomas Krause, Heather Auyang

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

This article updates and elaborates on last year’s What Close Cases and Reversals Reveal About Claim Construction at the Federal Circuit. Like the previous article, this article provides empirical insight into claim construction at the Federal Circuit, by approaching the question with two unique and distinct subsets of data: (1) “reversals” of all district court claim construction decisions since Phillips v. AWH, and (2) “close cases,” or post-Markman claim construction cases that had dissents in which a currently-active judge participated. The past year’s reversals data once again confirms that district courts persistently favor narrow claim interpretations in cases in which …

The Constitution According To Justices Scalia And Thomas: Alive And Kickin', Eric J. Segall

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.

Joint Works Under United States Copyright Law: Judicial Legislation Through Statutory Misinterpretation, Michael B. Landau

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.

The Philosophy And Jurisprudence Of Chief Justice Roberts, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Utah Law Review

A thicket of commentary has blossomed around the figure of Chief Justice Roberts. The bulk of it, however, has either focused exclusively on his role in the 2011 term or has lumped him in uncritically with the Court’s conservative wing. In response, this Article takes a wider view of his tenure, arguing that Chief Justice Roberts is best understood as an idealist, a true believer in the rule of law, with a special sensitivity toward issues of constitutional structure. In the first Part of the Article, I explore Chief Justice Roberts’s penchant for infusing his opinions with “teaching moments”—a tendency …

Judge Posner, Judge Wilkinson, And Judicial Critique Of Constitutional Theory, Marc O. Degirolami, Kevin C. Walsh

Faculty Publications

Judge Richard Posner’s well-known view is that constitutional theory is useless. And Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has lambasted constitutional theory for the way in which its “cosmic” aspirations threaten democratic self-governance. Many other judges hold similar views. And yet both Posner and Wilkinson — in the popular press, in law review articles, and in books — have advocated what appear to be their own theories of how to judge in constitutional cases. Judicial pragmatism for Posner and judicial restraint for Wilkinson seem to be substitutes for originalism, living constitutionalism, political process theory, and so on. But both Posner and …

On Creativity In Constitutional Interpretation, Pierre Schlag

Publications

In the present article a particular aspect of constitutional interpretation will be considered. This aspect is called "creative" and involves retrieving the meaning of an object of interpretation. It is with regard to this particular aspect or moment of interpretation that creativity is often viewed as something to be avoided, to be shunned. If the task at hand is to "retrieve" some meaning, then the idea that this meaning can be created, in whole or in part, seems quite simply antithetical to the enterprise at hand. It suffices to note that many jurists and legal thinkers believe that interpretation as …

The Judge And The Drone, Justin Deystone

Publications

Among the most characteristic issues in modern jurisprudence is the distinction between adjudication and legislation. In the some accounts, a judge's role in deciding a particular controversy is highly constrained and limited to the application of preexisting law. Whereas legislation is inescapably political, adjudication requires at least some form of impersonal neutrality. In various ways over the past century, theorists have pressed this conventional account, complicating the conceptual underpinnings of the distinction between law-application and lawmaking. This Article contributes to this literature on the nature of adjudication through the resuscitation of a structuralist mode of legal interpretation. In the structuralist …

Judge Posner, Judge Wilkinson, And Judicial Critique Of Constitutional Theory, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Judge Richard Posner's well-known view is that constitutional theory is useless. And Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III has lambasted constitutional theory for the way in which its "cosmic" aspirations threaten democratic self-governance. Many other judges hold similar views. And yet both Posner and Wilkinson-in the popular press, in law review articles, and in books-have advocated what appear to be their own theories of how to judge in constitutional cases. Judicial pragmatism for Posner and judicial restraint for Wilkinson seem to be substitutes for originalism, living constitutionalism, political process theory, and so on. But both Posner and Wilkinson also deny that …

Decorating The Structure: The Art Of Making Human Law, Brian Mccall

Faculty Articles

This article continues to develop the theme of law as architecture begun in two published articles, The Architecture of Law: Building Law on a Solid Foundation, the Eternal and Natural Law and Consulting the Architect when Problems Arise: The Divine Law. Having considered the foundation and framework of human law, this article turns to the decoration of the structure through the craft of human law making. It examines the process whereby the natural law is determined in particular political communities. Human law is the craft of particularizing the general principles of natural law in a community’s laws. It relies on …

Book Review: American Jericho: A Book Review Of The Hanging Judge By Michael A. Ponsor, Giovanna Shay

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judge Posner, Judge Wilkinson, And Judicial Critique Of Constitutional Theory,, Kevin C. Walsh, Marc O. Degirolami

Scholarly Articles

Judge Richard Posner's well-known view is that constitutional theory is useless. And Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III has lambasted constitutional theory for the way in which its "cosmic" aspirations threaten democratic self-governance. Many other judges hold similar views. And yet both Posner and Wilkinson-in the popular press, in law review articles, and in books-have advocated what appear to be their own theories of how to judge in constitutional cases. Judicial pragmatism for Posner and judicial restraint for Wilkinson seem to be substitutes for originalism, living constitutionalism, political process theory, and so on. But both Posner and Wilkinson also deny that …

The Controversy Over Citations To Foreign Authorities In American Constitutional Adjudication And The Conflict Of Judicial Philosophies: A Reply To Professor Glendon, Michel Rosenfeld

Articles

The controversy over U.S. Supreme Court justices citing foreign authorities in constitutional cases reflects a deeper ideological divide between restrictive and expansive judicial philosophies. This debate, evident in cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons, transcends traditional labels like originalism or political ideology, focusing instead on whether judges should defer to majoritarian decisionmaking or actively shape evolving rights. The article argues that the furor over foreign citations will diminish once the broader philosophical clash over judicial interpretation is resolved, as differences over foreign authorities are secondary to this central divide.

The Courts And National Security: The Ordeal Of The State Secrets Privilege, David Rudenstine

Articles

The state secrets privilege, originally established in United States v. Reynolds, has evolved into a powerful tool for the Executive to shield actions from judicial scrutiny, undermining the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances. This expansion, driven by judicial deference and circuit court interpretations, now prioritizes national security over accountability, threatening core legal principles. The article argues for reform to balance national security concerns with judicial oversight and individual rights.

Magna Carta In Supreme Court Jurisprudence, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Editor's Note: This article is adapted from "Magna Carta in Supreme Court Jurisprudence," which appears as Chapter 5 in Magna Carta and the Rule of Law, Daniel Magraw et al., eds., published by the American Bar Association in 2014.

Sotomayer's Supreme Court Race Jurisprudebce: 'Fidelity To The Law', Tanya K. Hernandez

Faculty Scholarship

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor, concerns were persistently raised about her ability to be impartial. Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh and many others railed against her nomination, proclaiming on talk radio broadcasts from coast-to-coast that she is a reverse-racist and nothing less than anti-white. A review of the Supreme Court record of race-related cases demonstrates Justice Sotomayor’s continued commitment to her stated judicial philosophy of fidelity to the law, inasmuch as she has not sought the unilateral imposition of her own personal racial policy preferences but has instead worked as a team player to scrupulously apply legal …

Sotomayor's Empathy Moves The Court A Step Closer To Equitable Adjudication, Veronica Couzo

Notre Dame Law Review

On August 6, 2009, then-Judge, now-Justice, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the nation’s first Latina Supreme Court Justice. While many Latinos embraced the idea of having “Sonia from the Bronx” on the bench, others were fearful that her jurisprudence, combined with her background, would result in “reverse racism.” These fears, while arguably unfounded at the time, have been completely dispelled. Just as Justice Thurgood Marshall transformed the adjudications of the Supreme Court through experiential discourse, so too, to a lesser extent, has Justice Sotomayor. In both oral arguments and written opinions, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has demonstrated educative leadership—enlightening her colleagues …

Self-Government And The Judicial Function, David Rudenstine

Articles

No abstract provided.

Footnote Online Supplement: State Truancy Law Compilation, Dean H. Rivkin

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

This compilation of state truancy laws is being provided as a footnote supplement to the forthcoming article No Child Left Behind? Representing Youth and Families in Truancy Matters (2013) by Prof. Dean Hill Rivkin and Brenda McGee, of The Education Law Practicum at the University of Tennessee College of Law. It is an updated version of the laws listed in the Juvenile Law Center’s excellent amicus curiae brief in Bellevue School District v. E.S., Brief of Juvenile Law Center, et al., As Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Respondent, Bellevue Sch. Dist. v. E.S., 257 P.3d 570 (Wash. 2011) …

Altering Attention In Adjudication, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Judges decide complex cases in rapid succession but are limited by cognitive constraints. Consequently judges cannot allocate equal attention to every aspect of a case. Case outcomes might thus depend on which aspects of a case are particularly salient to the judge. Put simply, a judge focusing on one aspect of a case might reach a different outcome than a judge focusing on another. In this Article, we report the results of a series of studies exploring various ways in which directing judicial attention can shape judicial outcomes. In the first study, we show that judges impose shorter sentences when …

The Role Of The Federal Judge In The Constitutional Structure: An Originalist Perspective, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

San Diego Law Review

Join me now in examining some of the structural features of our Constitution. And let’s do so by focusing upon cases that have come before my court—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the second highest federal court in the land, inferior only to the Supreme Court of the United States. My goal is to present, in modest outline, an originalist perspective on the federal judge’s role, particularly my role as a circuit judge, in the constitutional order.