Judges Commons^™

Judicial Retirements And The Staying Power Of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, Stuart M. Benjamin, Georg Vanberg

Faculty Scholarship

The influence of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions depends critically on how these opinions are received and treated by lower courts, which decide the vast majority of legal disputes. We argue that the retirement of Justices on the Supreme Court serves as a simple heuristic device for lower court judges in deciding how much deference to show to Supreme Court precedent. Using a unique dataset of the treatment of all Supreme Court majority opinions in the courts of appeals from 1953 to 2012, we find that negative treatments of Supreme Court opinions increase, and positive treatments decrease, as the Justices …

The Call And The Response: The Call, The 1991 Open Letter From Federal Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., And The 25 Years Of Response From Justice Clarence Thomas, 49 J. Marshall L. Rev. 925 (2016), Angela Mae Kupenda

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Court After Scalia, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

In this editorial, Professor Walsh surveys the 2015-2016 U.S. Supreme Court term, with particular attention to the effects the late Justice Antonin Scalia's absence had on the Court's decisions.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly: Reflections Of A Counterclerk, Gil Seinfeld

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Everyone has strong feelings about Justice Scalia. Lionized by the political right and demonized by the left, he has been among the most polarizing figures in American public life over the course of the last halfcentury. It is hardly surprising, then, that in the weeks since Justice Scalia’s death, the public discourse surrounding his legacy has exhibited something of a split personality. There have, of course, been plenty of appropriately respectful—even admiring—tributes from some of the Justice’s ideological adversaries; and here and there one of the Justice’s champions has acknowledged, with a hint of lament, the acerbic quality of some …

The Return Of Coverture, Allison Anna Tait

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Once, the notion that husbands and wives were equal partners in marriage seemed outlandish and unnatural. Today, the marriage narrative has been reversed and the prevailing attitude is that marriage has become an increasingly equitable institution. This is the story that Justice Kennedy told in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which he described marriage as an evolving institution that has adapted in response to social change such that discriminatory marriage rules no longer apply. Coverture exemplifies this change: marriage used to be deeply shaped by coverture rules and now it is not. While celebrating the demise of coverture, however, the …

Who Wins In The Supreme Court? An Examination Of Attorney And Law Firm Influence, Adam Feldman

Marquette Law Review

Who are the most successful attorneys in the Supreme Court? A novel way to answer this question is by looking at attorneys’ relative influence on the course of the law. This article performs macro and micro-level analyses of the most successful Supreme Court litigators by examining the amount of language shared between nearly 9,500 Supreme Court merits briefs and their respective Supreme Court opinions from 1946 through 2013. The article also includes analyses of the most successful law firms according to the same metric.

The Call And The Response: The Call, The 1991 Open Letter From Federal Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., And The 25 Years Of Response From Justice Clarence Thomas, Angela Mae Kupenda

Journal Articles

In 1991, Clarence Thomas was confirmed as the first Black radical conservative Justice, in spite of opposition including credible allegations of sexual harassment lodged against him. His unprecedented confirmation evoked unprecedented reactions, including written ones. One such written action is the basis for this article. Our nation is now fast approaching the anniversary, not only of Thomas’ 25 ceremonial years on the Court, but also of almost 25 years since an unprecedented, published, pointed, open, publicly and widely circulated correspondence was sent to the newly confirmed Justice Thomas by another Black judge. Esteemed Federal Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., penned …

Is Theocracy Our Politics? Thoughts On William Baude's 'Is Originalism Our Law?', Richard A. Primus

Articles

In Is Originalism Our Law?, William Baude has made a good kind of argument in favor of originalism. Rather than contending that originalism is the only coherent theory for interpreting a constitution, he makes the more modest claim that it happens to be the way that American judges interpret our Constitution. If he is right—if originalism is our law—then judges deciding constitutional cases ought to be originalists. But what exactly would the content of that obligation be? Calling some interpretive method “our law” might suggest that judges have an obligation to decide cases by reference to that method. But the …

Feminist Justice: Review Of Sisters In Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor And Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went To The Supreme Court And Changed The World, By Linda Hirshman, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

Like most good books, Sisters in Law has a number of strengths and also a few weaknesses. In this review, I briefly reflect on both, then turn to what struck me most about the book, the thing I’m still thinking about and struggling with: what it means to be an elite. The good, the bad, and the ugly (truth)—here is my reaction to Sisters in Law.

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scalia On Abortion: Originalism... But, Why?, Robert Cassidy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inside The Taft Court: Lessons From The Docket Books, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

For many years, the docket books kept by certain of the Taft Court Justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Though the existence of these docket books had been brought to the attention of the scholarly community, access to them was highly restricted. In April of 2014, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers a report and analysis based on a review of all of the Taft Court docket books held by the Office of the Curator, which are the only …

The High Power Of The Lower Courts, Doni Gewirtzman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Glimpses Of Marshall In The Military, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

Before President John Adams appointed him as Chief Justice of the United States in 1801, John Marshall was a soldier, a state legislator, a federal legislator, an envoy to France, and the Secretary of State. He also maintained a thriving practice in Virginia and federal courts, occasionally teaming up with political rival and personal friend Patrick Henry. Forty-five years old at the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall has been serving his state and his country for a quarter century before he took judicial office. Marshall is an exemplar of professional excellence for all lawyers and judges. …

Confirming Circuit Judges In A Presidential Election Year, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Over 2016, President Barack Obama tapped accomplished, mainstream candidates for seven of twelve federal appeals court vacancies. Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee has furnished a public hearing and vote for merely three nominees and did not conduct a hearing for any other prospect this year. 2016 concomitantly is a presidential election year in which appointments can be delayed and stopped—a conundrum that Justice Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court vacancy exacerbates. Because appellate courts comprise tribunals of last resort for practically all cases and critically need each of their members to deliver justice, the appointments process merits scrutiny. The Essay first evaluates …

The Counter-Clerks Of Justice Scalia, Ian Samuel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

“So, what are you going to do when you’re done here?”

That’s what he asked me first. I had just sat down in his chambers, on a big, overstuffed leather couch. It was a day in early April, and I’d spent my last few minutes sitting across the street in a park, shuffling through the index cards I’d been using for weeks to prepare. The cards were organized by topic, each with a few bullet points to remind me of what the man across from me thought about every subject on which he’d had an opinion over the last quarter-century. …

Justice Harlan's Enduring Importance For Current Civil Liberties Issues, From Marriage Equality To Dragnet Nsa Surveillance, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding Of The U.S. Constitution, Robert J. Kaczorowski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Secular Test For A Secular Statute, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

This short essay argues that a secular test is available to determine what constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It takes issue with the Court’s approach that is more deferential to the claimant, and with approaches offered by Professors Sepinwall and Helfand. It resists Sepinwall’s argument that proximity in law tracks a subjective sense of complicity, and it takes issue with Helfand’s argument that examining the substantiality of burden would implicate the religious question doctrine.

The Founding Fathers Said I Am Not Subject To Term Limits, Elias Arroyo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Extralegal Supreme Court Policy-Making, Joëlle Anne Moreno

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Colbert Report aired its final episode on December 18, 2014.1 Nine years earlier, on the first episode, Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” Truthiness satirized contemporary disinterest in empirical information in a country increasingly “divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.” Truthiness was not just the Merriam-Webster word of the year. Over the past decade, it has been the unspoken mantra of reporters who give equal time to climate science denialists, faith healers, and vaccine refusers. When Justices of the Supreme Court decide questions of scientific or empirical fact—such as whether …

Judicial Candor And Extralegal Reasoning: Why Extralegal Reasons Require Legal Justifications (And No More), Eric Dean Hageman

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note’s first Part explores two landmark Supreme Court cases, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and NFIB, that may have been decided based on extralegal considerations. Part II describes three prominent theories of judicial candor with an eye to the results they might yield with respect to extralegal reasoning. Part III offers and defends a new, partial theory of judicial candor. This theory is that a judge who employs extralegal reasoning should omit discussion of her reliance on that reasoning and justify her decision with legal reasoning.

The first two Parts will demonstrate that there is a …

The Semi-Retirement Of Senior Supreme Court Justices: Examining Their Service On The Courts Of Appeals, Jon A. Gryskiewicz

Seton Hall Circuit Review

No abstract provided.

Front Matter

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Congress Is Away The President Shall Not Play: Justice Scalia's Concurrence In Nlrb V. Noel Canning, Krista M. Pikus

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously decided NLRB v. Noel Canning, holding that the Recess Appointments Clause authorizes the president “to fill any existing vacancy during any recess . . . of sufficient length.” Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. While Justice Scalia “concurred,” his opinion read more like a dissent. Both the majority and the concurring opinions relied heavily on historical evidence in arriving at their respective opinions. This was expected from Justice Scalia given his method of “new originalism,” which focuses on “the original public …

Book Review: Much Ado About Nothing: The Brethren: Inside The Supreme Court, Richard L. Aynes

Akron Law Review

With such auspicious beginnings, The Brethren would appear to be a vital and important book which should be included upon the "required" reading list of those who wish to keep abreast of developments involving the Court and the evolution of constitutional law. Unfortunately, for anyone familiar with the decisions of the Court, the high expectations raised by The Brethren will not be met. Even when viewed in the most charitable light, the "insights" into the decision-making process to be gained from The Brethren are slight.2

Clouds In The Crystal Ball: Presidential Expectations And The Unpredictable Behavior Of Supreme Court Appointees, Christopher E. Smith, Kimberly A. Beuger

Akron Law Review

This article will analyze the pitfalls that presidents face in hoping that their nominees' judicial performance will comport with presidential expectations.

The Impact Of New Justices: The U.S. Supreme Court And Criminal Justice Policy, Christopher E. Smith

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court is an important policy-making institution. In criminal justice, for example, the high court issues decisions affecting institutions, actors, and processes throughout the justice system, from police investigations through corrections and parole. The Court's policy decisions affecting criminal justice are produced by the votes of the nine justices who select, hear, decide, and issue opinions in cases. It is widely recognized, and probably axiomatic, that the Supreme Court's decision-making patterns are determined by the Court's membership at any given moment in history. When five or more justices support a specific outcome in a case, they can form a …

Dirks And The Genesis Of Personal Benefit, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

In United States v. Newman, the Second Circuit overturned the insider trading convictions of two hedge fund managers who received material nonpublic information from public companies via an extended tipping chain. The Newman court interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Dirks v. SEC as requiring that the government prove: (1) that the tippee knew that the tipper was disclosing the information in exchange for a personal benefit; and (2) that if the personal benefit does not involve a quid pro quo to the tipper, that the disclosure arise from a "meaningfully close personal relationship" with the recipient of the …