Judges Commons^™

How Many Supreme Court Justices Can Stand On The Point Of A Needle? Originalist Scholarship, Political Neutrality, And Other Constitutional Nonsense, Stephen M. Feldman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

In the 1935 article, "Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach," Felix Cohen compared formalist legal reasoning, as practiced by traditional legal scholars and Lochner-era Supreme Court justices, to the philosophical musings of scholastic theologians. Unconnected to empirical reality, formalist legal reasoning was as nonsensical as a disquisition on “‘[h]ow many angels can stand on the point of a needle?’” Nowadays, originalist scholars are similarly engaged in nonsense. These scholars defend, refine, and practice originalist methods of constitutional interpretation as if the Supreme Court justices truly decided cases in accordance with the theory. Regardless, the justices—even the avowed originalists—do not consistently …

The Lone Dissent, Grant Christensen, Anne Mullins

Washington and Lee Law Review

What can be learned when a Supreme Court Justice decides to write a lone dissent? There exists a powerful set of incentives for Supreme Court opinions to achieve consensus. Although closely divided cases grab news headlines, unanimous opinions are actually the most commonly issued judicial alignment, and cases in which a single Justice dissents are the most unlikely. Despite voluminous academic discussion of judicial behavior, no legal scholarship has focused on the lone dissent. This Article is designed to insert consideration of lone dissenting opinions into the broader discussion of judicial behavior.

Looking at the set of Supreme Court opinions …

The Inconvenience Doctrine, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

Scholarly Articles

In a nation of stark inequalities, the Roberts Court is often portrayed as siding with the wealthy and powerful. Many scholars argue that the Court has abandoned legal principles altogether and instead simply chooses winners and losers based on the conservative majority’s political agenda. Meanwhile, scholarly examinations of the legal reasoning underlying the Court’s most impactful decisions are largely confined to specific subject areas. Such compartmentalized analyses, though, overlook broader patterns in the Court’s rulings that transcend substantive legal boundaries.

This Article bridges the gap in these parallel conversations by connecting the Roberts Court’s reasoning across many legal fields with …

What Roosevelt Did To Brown V. Board Of Education, Or Race And Court Packing, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

Roughly one-third of American schools remain segregated. Scholars have offered a variety of explanations, mostly social and cultural, but sometimes legal, for why desegregation did not proceed effectively after Brown v. Board of Education. This Article articulates a less expected and previously undocumented cause: President Roosevelt's prior attempt at court packing slowed--even derailed--desegregation.

The story of what Roosevelt's court packing did to make the work of integration harder is a cautionary tale, particularly for those who want to alter the U.S. Supreme Court now in furtherance of a modern cause. The only reasonable route for reforming the Supreme Court must …

Supplementing The Record: The Life And Career Of Judge Edmund L. Palmieri, Todd C. Peppers, Bridget Tainer-Parkins

Scholarly Articles

For approximately ninety years, lower federal court judges have hired law clerks to process the work of the courts. While the law clerks typically go on to successful careers as attorneys, law professors, government officials, and judges, it is rare that the former apprentices become so famous that their mentors are lost in their oversized shadows. This is the case, however, for former federal district court judge Edmund L. Palmieri. A highly respected jurist who sat in the Southern District of New York for over three decades, Palmieri has seemingly become the answer to the following trivial pursuit question: “What …

Book Review, Her Honor: Stories Of Challenge And Triumph From Women Judges By Lauren S. Rikleen (2024), Ashley Evans

Library Scholarship

In an inspiring collection of stories, Her Honor: Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges takes readers on a journey into the lives and experiences of 25 female judges. These distinguished women are all recipients of the American Bar Association’s Margaret Brent Award, an honor bestowed upon women who achieve professional excellence and serve as inspirations in the legal field. The collection of narratives in this book shines a light on the exceptional lives, hardships, and accomplishments of these exceptional women, leaving readers feeling empowered and motivated.

Decisionmaking In Patent Cases At The Federal Circuit, Jason Reinecke

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article provides the results of an empirical study assessing the impact of panel composition in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. The dataset includes 2675 three-judge panel-level final written decisions and Rule 36 summary affirmances issued by the Federal Circuit between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2021. The study informs the longstanding debate concerning whether the Federal Circuit is succeeding as a court with nationwide jurisdiction in patent cases and provides insight into judicial decisionmaking more broadly. And several results show that many of the worst fears that commentators have about the Federal Circuit appear overstated or untrue. …

#Metoo & The Courts: The Impact Of Social Movements On Federal Judicial Decisionmaking, Carol T. Li, Matthew E.K. Hall, Veronica Root Martinez

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In late 2017, the #MeToo movement swept through the United States as individuals from all backgrounds and walks of life revealed their experiences with sexual abuse and sexual harassment. After the #MeToo movement, many scholars, advocates, and policymakers posited that the watershed moment would prompt changes in the ways in which sexual harassment cases were handled. This Article examines the impact the #MeToo movement has had on judicial decisionmaking. Our hypothesis is that the #MeToo movement’s increase in public awareness and political attention to experiences of sexual misconduct should lead to more pro-claimant voting in federal courts at the district …

Thoughts On Law Clerk Diversity And Influence, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

It is my great good fortune to have been asked to comment on the remarkable Article Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights from Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals by Judge Jeremy D. Fogel, Professor Mary S. Hoopes, and Justice Goodwin Liu. Drawing on a rich vein of data gathered pursuant to a carefully crafted research design and extensive interviews, the authors provide the most detailed account to date regarding the selection criteria used by federal appeals court judges to select their law clerks. The authors pay special attention to the role that diversity plays in picking …

How Biden Could Keep Filling The Federal Circuit Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In October 2020, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speculated that the fifty-four talented, extremely conservative, and exceptionally young, appellate court judges whom then-President Donald Trump and two relatively similar Grand Old Party (GOP) Senate majorities appointed had left the federal appeals courts “out of whack.” Problematic were the many deleterious ways in which Trump and both of the upper chamber majorities in the 115th and 116th Senate undermined the courts of appeals, which are the courts of last resort for practically all lawsuits, because the United States Supreme Court hears so few appeals. The nomination and confirmation processes which Trump …

Analysis Of The Application Of The Code Of Ethics Of Judges And Jurors (2022), James Moliterno, Jemali Saiti, Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, Andrej Bozhinovski

Books and Chapters

No abstract provided.

Movement Judges, Brandon Hasbrouck

Scholarly Articles

Judges matter. The opinions of a few impact the lives of many. Judges romanticize their own impartiality, but apathy in the face of systems of oppression favors the status quo and clears the way for conservative agendas to take root. The lifetime appointments of federal judges, the deliberate weaponization of the bench by reactionary opponents of the New Deal and progressive social movements, and the sheer inertia of judicial self-restraint have led to the conservative capture of the courts. By contrast, empathy for the oppressed and downtrodden renders substantive justice possible and leaves room for unsuccessful litigants to accept unfavorable …

Gertrude Jenkins, Unplugged, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Gertrude Jenkins worked for U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone until his death in 1946. Adept at multi-tasking, she also ran a boarding house to make more money. A position as a floating secretary was created for Jenkins at the Court, and she worked in other chambers as well as the Court library until October 1949, when she accepted a position in Justice Frankfurter’s chambers. Jenkins retired in August 1953.

Gertrude Jenkins’s letters neither shed light on the grand constitutional issues of her day nor provide insights into the justices’ jurisprudential views. They will not cause historians to radically reevaluate …

Chief Justice John Roberts: Institutionalist Or Hubris-In-Chief?, Eric J. Segall

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The conventional wisdom among Supreme Court scholars and commentators is that Chief Justice John Roberts is an institutionalist who cares deeply about both his personal legacy and the Supreme Court’s prestige over time. This essay challenges that belief. While the Chief certainly cares about how the Court is perceived by the public, as do most of the justices, what most defines Roberts is his hubris—not a concern for the Court’s legitimacy or even his own place in history. Across the vast landscape of constitutional law, Roberts has distorted precedent and ignored text and history to further his own policy preferences. …

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 …

Antiracist Remedial Approaches In Judge Gregory’S Jurisprudence, Leah M. Litman

Washington and Lee Law Review

This piece uses the idea of antiracism to highlight parallels between school desegregation cases and cases concerning errors in the criminal justice system. There remain stark, pervasive disparities in both school composition and the criminal justice system. Yet even though judicial remedies are an integral part of rooting out systemic inequality and the vestiges of discrimination, courts have been reticent to use the tools at their disposal to adopt proactive remedial approaches to address these disparities. This piece uses two examples from Judge Roger Gregory’s jurisprudence to illustrate how an antiracist approach to judicial remedies might work.

The Other Ordinary Persons, Fred O. Smith, Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

If originalism aims to center the original public meaning of text, who constitutes “the public”? Are we doing enough to capture historically excluded voices: impoverished white planters; dispossessed Natives; silenced women; and the enslaved? If not, what more is required? And for those who are not originalists, how do we ensure that, as American law consults the wisdom of the ages, we do not sever entire sources of wisdom?

This brief symposium Article engages these themes, offering two modest, interrelated claims. The first is that important informational, ethical, and democratic benefits accrue when American legal doctrine includes the voices and …

Which America?: Judge Roger L. Gregory And The Tradition Of African-American Political Thought, Daniel Fryer

Washington and Lee Law Review

In this Article, written in connection with a symposium honoring Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory’s twenty years on the bench, I place Judge Gregory’s jurisprudence within the tradition of African-American political thought. I suggest that, at bottom, Judge Gregory has a leveling-up jurisprudence that seeks to interpret the Constitution in a way that ensures the least well-off in society are granted the same rights as the most privileged. This brand of democratic theorizing approximates a mainstream position by Black political theorists optimistically seeking to have the least well-off integrated into a fully equal society. By comparing and contrasting his work …

When Statutory Interpretation Becomes Precedent: Why Individual Rights Advocates Shouldn’T Be So Quick To Praise Bostock, Elena Schiefele

Washington and Lee Law Review

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s approach to textualism, which this Note will call “muscular textualism,” is unique. Most notably exemplified in Bostock v. Clayton County, muscular textualism is marked by its rigorous adherence to what Justice Gorsuch perceives to be the “plain language” of the text. Because Justice Gorsuch’s opinions exemplify muscular textualism in a structured and consistent manner, his appointment to the Supreme Court provides the forum from which he can influence the decision-making process of other members of the judiciary when they seek guidance from Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, it is important for both advocates and judges to understand …

Antiracism In Action, Daniel Harawa, Brandon Hasbrouck

Washington and Lee Law Review

Racism pervades the criminal legal system, influencing everything from who police stop and search, to who prosecutors charge, to what punishments courts apply. The Supreme Court’s fixation on colorblind application of the Constitution gives judges license to disregard the role race plays in the criminal legal system, and all too often, they do. Yet Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory challenges the facially race-neutral reasoning of criminal justice actors, often applying ostensibly colorblind scrutiny to achieve a color-conscious jurisprudence. Nor is he afraid of engaging directly in a frank discussion of the racial realities of America, rebuking those within the system …

Foreword: Humanity, Dignity, And Grace, Brant J. Hellwig

Washington and Lee Law Review

Commentary from Dean Brant Hellwig of the Washington and Lee University School of Law on the 2020-2021 Annual Lara D. Gass Symposium celebrating Hon. Roger L. Gregory, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and this special issue of the Law Review featuring scholarship relating to that event.

Comparative Judicialism, Popular Sovereignty, And The Rule Of Law: The Us And Uk Supreme Courts, Lissa Griffin, Thomas Kidney

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

What does the future hold for the US and UK Supreme Courts? Both courts face an uncertain future in which their roles in their constitutional systems will come under intense scrutiny and pressure. The tension between the rule of law, often seen as the preserve of the judicial branches of government, and the sovereignty of the elected branches is palpable. In a time of the “strong man,” allegedly “populist leaders” who seemingly are pushing the limits of the rule of law, the breakdown of collaboration and debate, and the ever-present influence of social media, this tension will only become more …

Recent Attacks On Judicial Independence: The Vulgar, The Systemic, And The Insidious, James E. Moliterno, Peter Čuroš

Scholarly Articles

This article offers an opening to Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) situation and attacks against the judiciary in this region since 2010. The focus is not primarily on historical path dependence like the rest of this issue. Instead, the focus aims at the nature of attacks on the judiciary. Such attacks have appeared in CEE and the US in recent years. Its interest lies in explaining similar patterns visible in the judiciaries of CEE. Particularly, it looks at the current conditions in the Czech judiciary, political interventions in Poland since 2015 and in Hungary since 2010, and undermining of trust …

Against Court Packing, Or A Plea To Formally Amend The Constitution, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

The original arguments against court packing carry less weight in the current social and constitutional era. Less weight, however, implies some validity to those concerns and within those arguments is an acknowledgement that court packing comes with some risk to governmental stability. Still, the original arguments against court packing cannot be categorized as strong in the current climate.

A better argument against court packing is simply that it is unlikely to be effective for any long-term informal constitutional change that is responsive to key social issues. Informal constitutional change is more clearly stable when it involves structural change rather than …

Federal Sentencing: A Judge’S Personal Sentencing Journey Told Through The Voices Of Offenders He Sentenced, Mark W. Bennett

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Federal sentencing is a tragic mess. Thirty years of conflicting legislative experiments began with high hopes but resulted in mass incarceration. Federal sentences, especially in drug cases, are all too often bone-crushingly severe.

In this Article, the Honorable Mark Bennett, a retired federal judge, shares about his journey with federal sentencing and his strong disagreement with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by telling the stories of some of the 400 men and women he sentenced during his twenty-five years as a federal judge.

Supreme Court Journalism: From Law To Spectacle?, Barry Sullivan, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Washington and Lee Law Review

Few people outside certain specialized sectors of the press and the legal profession have any particular reason to read the increasingly voluminous opinions through which the Justices of the Supreme Court explain their interpretations of the Constitution and laws. Most of what the public knows about the Supreme Court necessarily comes from the press. That fact raises questions of considerable importance to the functioning of our constitutional democracy: How, for example, does the press describe the work of the Supreme Court? And has the way in which the press describes the work of the Court changed over the past several …

(Un)Conscious Judging, Elizabeth Thornburg

Washington and Lee Law Review

Fact inferences made by the trial judge are the lynchpin of civil litigation. If inferences were a matter of universally held logical deductions, this would not be troubling. Inferences, however, are deeply contestable conclusions that vary from judge to judge. Non-conscious psychological phenomena can lead to flawed reasoning, implicit bias, and culturally influenced perceptions. Inferences differ significantly, and they matter. Given the homogeneous makeup of the judiciary, this is a significant concern.

This Article will demonstrate the ubiquity, importance, and variability of inferences by examining actual cases in which trial and appellate (or majority and dissenting) judges draw quite different …

Foreword, In From The Texas Cotton Fields To The United States Tax Court: The Life Journey Of Juan F. Vasquez (Mary Theresa Vasquez & Anthony Head, 2020), Brant J. Hellwig

Books and Chapters

The story of the life of the first Hispanic American appointed to serve as a judge on the United States Tax Court. An educational and inspirational story of a professional career, the book is accessible to lawyers and laypersons of all ages.

Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller And The Great Mustache Debate Of 1888, Todd C. Peppers

Scholarly Articles

Over the long history of the Supreme Court, nominees to the highest court in the land have been opposed for a variety of reasons. Often opponents are concerned about the nominee’s political ideology or competency. Occasionally, allegations are raised about political cronyism. And candidates have come under fire for their religion. But nominee Melville Weston Fuller’s selection launched a national debate that went to the very heart of what makes one qualified to sit on the Supreme Court: whether a judge should have a mustache.

On March 23, 1888, Morrison R. Waite died of pneumonia after sitting for fourteen years …

Practical Truth: The Value Of Apparent Honesty In Supreme Court Opinions, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Judicial honesty or judicial candor is the subject of significant scholarly attention, but it is not the focus of this Essay. Rather, the author's focus is on the importance that appearing honest has on the persuasive force of an opinion and the dangers associated with failing to achieve that goal. This distinction is not intended to suggest Justices should seek apparent honesty while not being actually honest. Rather, this Essay emphasizes that actually honest opinions must also be apparently honest. Thus, judicial candor is necessary to apparent honesty, but it is not always sufficient on its own.

To support the …