Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Richmond (344)
- Seattle University School of Law (202)
- University of Michigan Law School (153)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (128)
- William & Mary Law School (46)
-
- Roger Williams University (27)
- University of Colorado Law School (27)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (23)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (22)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (22)
- Georgetown University Law Center (21)
- UIC School of Law (21)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (20)
- American University Washington College of Law (19)
- Fordham Law School (18)
- Boston University School of Law (15)
- Duke Law (15)
- Emory University School of Law (15)
- Cleveland State University (14)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (14)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (13)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (13)
- New York Law School (12)
- Notre Dame Law School (12)
- St. Mary's University (12)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (12)
- University of Georgia School of Law (12)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (11)
- Pepperdine University (11)
- Washington University in St. Louis (11)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (210)
- United States Supreme Court (165)
- Constitution (100)
- Judges (73)
- Constitutional law (55)
-
- Federal (47)
- Judge (45)
- Justice (45)
- State (40)
- Courts (38)
- Judicial review (37)
- SCOTUS (36)
- New York (32)
- Defendant (31)
- Jurisprudence (30)
- Court of Appeals (28)
- History (28)
- Supreme Court of the United States (28)
- Court (26)
- Judiciary (25)
- Congress (24)
- Due process (24)
- Law (24)
- 1990) (23)
- Supreme Court Justices (23)
- Originalism (22)
- Politics (22)
- Textualism (22)
- Constitutional interpretation (21)
- Equality (21)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- University of Richmond Law Review (323)
- Seattle University Law Review (202)
- Touro Law Review (120)
- Michigan Law Review (86)
- Faculty Scholarship (58)
-
- Articles (48)
- Publications (26)
- Scholarly Articles (24)
- Northwestern University Law Review (21)
- Faculty Articles (16)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (16)
- Supreme Court Preview (15)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (13)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (13)
- Cardozo Law Review (12)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (12)
- Journal Articles (12)
- Law Student Publications (12)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (12)
- Faculty Publications (11)
- Fordham Law Review (11)
- Pepperdine Law Review (11)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (11)
- UIC Law Review (11)
- William & Mary Law Review (10)
- Law Faculty Publications (9)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (9)
- UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship (9)
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications (9)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (8)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 961 - 990 of 1459
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Fun With Administrative Law: A Game For Lawyers And Judges, Adam Babich
Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law
The practice of law is not a game. Administrative law in particular can implicate important issues that impact people’s health, safety, and welfare and change business’ profitability or even viability. Nonetheless, it can seem like a game. This is because courts rarely explain administrative law rulings in terms of the public purposes and policies at issue in lawsuits. Instead, the courts’ administrative law opinions tend to turn on arcane interpretive doctrines with silly names, such as the “Chevron two-step” or “Chevron step zero.” To advance doctrinal arguments, advocates and courts engage in linguistic debates that resemble a smokescreen—tending to obscure …
Six Overrulings, Andrew Koppelman
Six Overrulings, Andrew Koppelman
Michigan Law Review
John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 at the age of ninety after more than thirty-four years on the Supreme Court, has capped his astoundingly distinguished career by becoming an important public intellectual. He reviews books, gives high-profile interviews, wrote a memoir of the chief justices he has known, and has now written a second book. Six Amendments revisits half a dozen old, lost battles. Stevens appeals over the heads of his colleagues to a higher authority: the public. Now that he is off the Court, Stevens explains why six decisions in which he dissented should be overruled by constitutional …
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Scholarly Articles
Much commentary about Catholic Justices serving on the Supreme Court suffers from three related shortcomings: (1) episodic, one-case-at-a-time commentary; (2) asymmetric causal attributions resulting from inattention to cases in which Catholic Justices vote for outcomes opposite those advocated by the Catholic Bishops' Conference; and (3) inattention to broader jurisprudential and ideological factors. This article uses an overlooked resource to identify and counteract these shortcomings. It assesses the votes of the Justices-Catholic and non-Catholic alike-in the full set of cases from the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court (through June 2014) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed …
Stare Decisis In The Second-Best World, Randy J. Kozel
Stare Decisis In The Second-Best World, Randy J. Kozel
Journal Articles
If judges disagree about the proper interpretation of the law, can they find common ground in the treatment of precedent? The doctrine of stare decisis weighs the value of legal continuity against the value of legal accuracy. But that analysis is complicated by pervasive disputes over the implications of legal error. Likewise, the scope of a precedent's impact in future cases depends on underlying assumptions about the ends and means of legal interpretation. When those assumptions vary among judges, so too will applications of stare decisis. For stare decisis to promote the continuity and impersonality of law, it requires an …
God, Civic Virtue, And The American Way: Reconstructing Engel, Corinna Barrett Lain
God, Civic Virtue, And The American Way: Reconstructing Engel, Corinna Barrett Lain
Law Faculty Publications
If ever a decision embodied the heroic, counter majoritarian function we romantically ascribe to judicial review, it was the 1962 decision that struck down school prayer-Engel v. Vitale. Engel provoked more outrage, more congres- sionalattemptsto overturnit, andmoreattackson theJusticesthanperhapsany other decision in Supreme Court history. Indeed, Engel's counter majoritarian narrative is so strong that scholars have largely assumed that the historical record supports our romanticized conception of the case.Itdoesnot. Usingprimary source materials, this Article reconstructs the story of Engel, then explores the implicationsof this reconstructednarrative. Engel is not the countermajoritarian case it seems, but recognizing that allows us to see Engel …
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Addressing Three Problems In Commentary On Catholics At The Supreme Court By Reference To Three Decades Of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs, Kevin C. Walsh
Law Faculty Publications
Much commentary about Catholic Justices serving on the Supreme Court suffers from three related shortcomings: (1) episodic, one-case-at-a-time commentary; (2) asymmetric causal attributions resulting from inattention to cases in which Catholic Justices vote for outcomes opposite those advocated by the Catholic Bishops' Conference; and (3) inattention to broader jurisprudential and ideological factors. This article uses an overlooked resource to identify and counteract these shortcomings. It assesses the votes of the Justices-Catholic and non-Catholic alike-in the full set of cases from the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court (through June 2014) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed …
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent On The Meaning Of Federal Law?, Amanda Frost
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely …
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew J. Steilen
Judicial Review And Non-Enforcement At The Founding, Matthew J. Steilen
Journal Articles
This Article examines the relationship between judicial review and presidential non-enforcement of statutory law. Defenders of non-enforcement regularly argue that the justification for judicial review that prevailed at the time of the founding also justifies the president in declining to enforce unconstitutional laws. The argument is unsound. This Article shows that there is essentially no historical evidence, from ratification through the first decade under the Constitution, in support of a non-enforcement power. It also shows that the framers repeatedly made statements inconsistent with the supposition that the president could refuse to enforce laws he deemed unconstitutional. In contrast, during this …
Personal Is Political For Roberts Court, Eric J. Segall
Personal Is Political For Roberts Court, Eric J. Segall
Faculty Publications By Year
No abstract provided.
Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Following Lower-Court Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article examines the role of lower-court precedent in the US Supreme Court’s decisions. The Supreme Court is rarely the first court to consider a legal question, and therefore the Court has the opportunity to be informed by and perhaps even persuaded by the views of the various lower courts that have previously addressed the issue. This Article considers whether the Court should give weight to lower-court precedent as a matter of normative theory and whether the Court in fact does so as a matter of practice. To answer the normative question, this Article analyzes a variety of potential reasons …
The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton
The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton
Cardozo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Some Kind Of Judge: Henry Friendly And The Law Of Federal Courts, Aaron P. Brecher
Some Kind Of Judge: Henry Friendly And The Law Of Federal Courts, Aaron P. Brecher
Michigan Law Review
Uberfans of the federal judiciary owe a lot to David Dorsen. His illuminating biography of Judge Henry Friendly is a fitting tribute to the contributions of a jurist that many consider to be among the finest judges never to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judicial biography is a difficult genre to do well, and most authors choose to focus on Supreme Court justices. But Henry Friendly, Greatest Judge of His Era is an excellent source of information on Friendly’s life and, far more important, his views on the law and his relationships with some of the most fascinating figures …
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
In Search Of Justice: An Examination Of The Appointments Of John G. Roberts And Samuel A. Alito To The U.S. Supreme Court And Their Impact On American Jurisprudence, Alberto R. Gonzales
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges …
The Philosophy And Jurisprudence Of Chief Justice Roberts, Kiel Brennan-Marquez
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 …
At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright
At What Is The Supreme Court Comparatively Advantaged?, R. George Wright
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Selecting The Very Best: The Selection Of High-Level Judges In The United States, Europe And Asia, Christa J. Laser, Tefft Smith, Michael Fragoso, Christopher Jackson, Gregory Wannier
Selecting The Very Best: The Selection Of High-Level Judges In The United States, Europe And Asia, Christa J. Laser, Tefft Smith, Michael Fragoso, Christopher Jackson, Gregory Wannier
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This paper has been prepared by Kirkland & Ellis LLP for the Due Process of Law Foundation (“DPLF”), an organization dedicated to promoting and strengthening the rule of law and the respect for human rights in the Americas. The goal is to provide further stimulus to the enhancement of due process and the rule of law in Latin America by encouraging the transparent, merit-based selection and appointment of competent, independent, and impartial judges. An independent and impartial judiciary is an essential precondition to the effective operation of the rule of law, with due process for all. This, in turn, is …
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2013 Table Of Contents
Issue 1: Annual Survey 2013 Table Of Contents
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Overstating, Dan Simon, Nicholas Scurich
Judicial Overstating, Dan Simon, Nicholas Scurich
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Ostensibly, we are all Legal Realists now. No longer do legal theorists maintain that judicial decision making fits the mechanical and formalist characterizations of yesteryear. Yet, the predominant style of American appellate court opinions seems to adhere to that improbable mode of adjudication: habitually, opinions provide excessively large sets of syllogistic reasons and portray the chosen decision as certain, singularly correct, and as determined inevitably by the legal materials. This article examines two possible explanations for this rhetorical style of Judicial Overstatement. First, we review the psychological research that suggests that judicial overstatement is a product of the cognitive processes …
Justice Brennan: Legacy Of A Champion, Dawn Johnsen
Justice Brennan: Legacy Of A Champion, Dawn Johnsen
Michigan Law Review
During the 1980s, when the Court's approval rating was relatively high, commentators from both ends of the ideological spectrum remarked on the importance of Justices' values and views, and bemoaned the public's utter lack of attention to the Court and judicial appointments. President Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice prefaced an extensive analysis of the momentous issues at stake for the Court and the Constitution with a call for attention to the "critical" yet "often overlooked" "values and philosophies" of federal judges. Professor Laurence Tribe similarly introduced a historical analysis of the Court's vital role by describing Justices' "powerful, if often …
Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy, And The Virtues Of The Middle Ground, Allen K. Rostron
Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy, And The Virtues Of The Middle Ground, Allen K. Rostron
Faculty Works
When the Supreme Court hears arguments this fall about the constitutionality of affirmative action policies at the University of Texas, attention will be focused once again on Justice Anthony Kennedy. With the rest of the Court split between a bloc of four reliably liberal jurists and an equally solid cadre of four conservatives, the spotlight regularly falls on Kennedy, the swing voter that each side in every closely divided and ideologically charged case desperately hopes to attract. Critics condemn Kennedy for having an unprincipled, capricious, and self-aggrandizing style of decision-making. Though he is often decisive in the sense of casting …
Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins
UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship
As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …
Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane
Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane
Articles
Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …
Two Great Leaders, L.A. Powe Jr.