Judges Commons^™

Article Iii's Constraints On The Legislative Power, Elizabeth Earle Beske

William & Mary Law Review

Article III’s heightened concreteness standard for statutory harms takes federal judges deep into legislative terrain, jeopardizing statutory damage provisions and confining Congress to post hoc solutions rather than preemptive strikes. The Supreme Court has insisted that creating a cause of action is a legislative function. At the same time, its recent standing cases instruct lower federal courts to permit suit on statutory injuries only when they find actual harm that bears a tight connection to injuries recognized at common law. This new harm requirement rests uneasily with countless statutes featuring statutory damage provisions that are in place precisely because damages …

The Judicial Voice On The Courts Of Appeals, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

The judicial voice on an appellate court typically speaks in the collective, so when a judge chooses to go solo—either in a dissent or a concurrence—that act deserves a close look. Separate opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court are common because the Justices have strong incentives to articulate a distinctive personal jurisprudence. But lower court judges have always been more reluctant to write separately, and for good reason. The institutional design and longstanding practices of the U.S. courts of appeals are very different from the Supreme Court: Lower appellate court judges are bound by precedent in a different way, rarely …

Judge Platt Potter: Politics And Principle In Interbranch Conflict, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

During the previous Congress, some commentators called on the Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats and chaired by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, to demand the testimony of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over allegations of ethical breaches, securing their presence by subpoena if necessary. The Committee did not subpoena the Justices, with Durbin citing the likely lack of sufficient votes and worrying that the Senate would not be able to enforce the subpoenas anyway. During the same Congress, Durbin asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify about judicial ethics, an invitation that Roberts declined.

These incidents …

The Bare-Majority Requirement Of The Delaware Judiciary And Its Unfortunate Violation Of The First Amendment, Tyler Mayhew

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note will attempt to remedy the circuit split on the issue of whether judges are policymakers for purposes of the First Amendment, and if they are not—as this Note concludes—whether the Delaware Constitution is in violation of the First Amendment through its major-party and bare-majority requirement.

First, this Note will analyze the development of the only challenge to article IV, section 3 of the Delaware Constitution as it proceeded from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was thrown out on standing. Second, this Note will argue that judges are …

Redressing Judicial Misbehavior: An Integrated Approach To Judicial Immunity, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

Immunities generate intense public interest and controversy. Whether it is the sweeping presidential immunity that former President Trump has claimed or the qualified immunity that rogue police invoke to evade financial responsibility for their brutality, immunities stand as a highly contested aspect of the American legal system. Judicial immunity incites similar controversy. American judges possess absolute immunity from civil suits for their judicial acts, so victims are barred from seeking civil compensation, even against judges who engage in purposeful or malicious misconduct from the bench. For decades scholars have sought to curtail absolute judicial immunity, but they have overlooked a …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

Constitutional Rights And Remedial Consistency, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

When the Supreme Court declined definitively to block Texas’s S.B. 8, which effectively eliminated pre-enforcement federal remedies for what was then a plainly unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights, a prominent criticism was that the majority would have never tolerated the similar treatment of preferred legal protections—like gun rights. This refrain reemerged when California enacted a copycat regime for firearms regulation. This theme sounds in the deep-rooted idea that judge-made law should adhere to generality and neutrality values requiring doctrines to derive justification from controlling a meaningful class of cases ascertained by objective legal criteria.

This Article is about consistency, and …

Bottom-Up Federal Sentencing Reform, Andrew W. Grindrod

William & Mary Law Review

Today, about 160,000 people live behind the bars of a federal prison. That is roughly the population of Alexandria, Virginia. Starting from the premise that the federal system’s contribution to mass incarceration should be curbed and recognizing that broad legislative reform seems unlikely, this Article considers the federal judiciary’s potential role in sentencing reform.

Bottom-up sentencing reform consists of federal trial judges exercising their decisional authority in individual cases to engage with the fundamental premises and assumptions that underlie traditional sentencing decisions, categorically rejecting them when appropriate. This approach to reform is available under current law. In fact, a few …

Can Judges Help Ease Mass Incarceration?, Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

A scholar considers how judges have contributed to historically high incarceration rates -- and how they can help reverse the trend.

Learning To Disagree Agreeably, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

But the most important lesson I learned from Judge Wilkinson—out of many important lessons—is the one brought home to me by witnessing his friendship with Judge Michael: the law works only when lawyers learn to “disagree agreeably.” This is a phrase the Judge taught me—and he always attributed to people from whom he learned it—but for me it encapsulates the Judge in every way. It is easy to talk about being collegial in the abstract, but Judge Wilkinson practices what he preaches.

In this brief Essay, on the occasion of celebrating a man who shaped my career and life in …

Sentencing In An Era Of Plea Bargains, Jeffrey Bellin, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Publications

The literature offers inconsistent answers to a question that is foundational to criminal law: Who imposes sentences? Traditional narratives place sentencing responsibility in the hands of the judge. Yet, in a country where 95% of criminal convictions come from guilty pleas (not trials), modern American scholars center prosecutors—who control plea terms—as the deciders of punishment. This Article highlights and seeks to resolve the tension between these conflicting narratives by charting the pathways by which sentences are determined in a system dominated by plea bargains.

After reviewing the empirical literature on sentence variation, examining state and federal plea-bargaining rules and doctrines, …

Core And Periphery In Constitutional Law, R. George Wright

William & Mary Law Review Online

This paper embarks on an excursion through a number of the most vital constitutional rights cases, and other contexts as well, and seeks to show that the recurring judicial attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas within any given broad constitutional right are unnecessary and distracting. Intriguingly, the case for this conclusion varies significantly depending upon the nature of the general constitutional right in question. But the overall lesson is that courts should abandon their attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas of any given broad constitutional right. Courts should instead focus—directly or indirectly—on their best assessment of …

Judges And Mass Incarceration, Carissa Byrne Hessick

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

It seems to have fallen out of fashion to talk about judges as a source of criminal justice reform. Instead, the academic literature now focuses on the role that prosecutors and legislatures have played in mass incarceration. But judges have also played an important role in the phenomenon that has come to be known as mass incarceration. Perhaps more importantly, there are things that judges could do to help reverse that trend.

Judges will sometimes say our system is too harsh. But, in the same breath they tell us the decision to create such a system and the decision to …

Circuit Personalities, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

The U.S. Courts of Appeals do not behave as one; they have developed circuit-specific practices that are passed down from one generation of judges to the next. These different norms and traditions (some written down, others not) exist on a variety of levels: rules governing oral argument and the publishing of opinions, en banc practices, social customs, case discussion norms, law clerk dynamics, and even selfimposed circuit nicknames. In this Article, we describe these varying “circuit personalities” and then argue that they are necessary to the very survival of the federal courts of appeals. Circuit-specific norms and traditions foster collegiality …

The Myth Of The All-Powerful Federal Prosecutor At Sentencing, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

Relying on a dataset I assembled of 130 doctors prosecuted for illegal opioid distribution between 2015 and 2019, this Article shows that judges rejected federal prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations over two-thirds of the time. Put differently, prosecutors lost much more often than they prevailed at sentencing. And judges often rejected the prosecutors’ sentencing positions by dramatic margins. In 23% of cases, judges imposed a sentence that was half or even less than half of what prosecutors recommended. In 45% of cases, judges imposed a sentence that was at least one-third lower than what prosecutors requested. In short, prosecutors lost most of …

Weaponizing En Banc, Neal Devins, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

The federal courts of appeals embrace the ideal that judges are committed to rule-of-law norms, collegiality, and judicial independence. Whatever else divides them, these judges generally agree that partisan identity has no place on the bench. Consequently, when a court of appeals sits “en banc,” (i.e., collectively) the party affiliations of the three-judge panel under review should not matter. Starting in the 1980s, however, partisan ideology has grown increasingly important in the selection of federal appellate judges. It thus stands to reason—and several high-profile modern examples illustrate—that today’s en banc review could be used as a weapon by whatever party …

The Jurisprudence Of The First Woman Judge, Florence Allen: Challenging The Myth Of Women Judging Differently, Tracy A. Thomas

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article delves into the life and work of Judge [Florence] Allen to provide insight to the contributions and jurisprudence of the first woman judge. For history questions what difference putting a woman on the bench might have made. Part I explores Allen’s early influences on her intellectual development grounded in her progressive and politically active family, and her close network of female professional friends. Part II discusses her pivotal work with the women’s suffrage movement, working with the national organizations in New York and leading the legal and political efforts in Ohio. This proactive commitment to gender justice, however, …

The Pure-Hearted Abrams Case, Andres Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

One hundred years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his mind about the right to free speech and wound up splitting the history of free speech law into two. In his dissent in Abrams v. United States, he called for the end of the old order—in which courts often ignored or rejected free speech claims—and set the stage for the current order—in which the right to free speech is of central constitutional importance. However, a century on, scholars have been unable to identify a specific reason for Holmes’s Abrams transformation, and have instead pointed to more diffuse influences. By …

The Race To The Top To Reduce Prosecutorial Misconduct, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

This Essay offers an unconventional approach to deterring prosecutorial misconduct. Trial judges should use their inherent authority to forbid prosecutors from appearing and handling cases in their courtrooms until the prosecutors have completed training on Brady v. Maryland, Batson v. Kentucky, and other types of prosecutorial misconduct. If a single trial judge in a medium-sized or large jurisdiction imposes training prerequisites on prosecutors, it could set off a race to the top that encourages other judges to adopt similar (or perhaps even more rigorous) training requirements. A mandate that prosecutors receive ethics training before handling any cases is …

The Nature Of Standing, Matthew Hall, Christian Turner

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Most academic studies of standing have focused on restrictions on federal court jurisdiction drawn from Article III of U.S. Constitution and related doctrinal schemes developed by state courts. These rules are constructed atop a few words of the Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under various circumstances. The Supreme Court has interpreted these words to require federal courts to assess whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is both fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and redressable by a favorable ruling before proceeding to the merits of …

We Must Restore Americans' Faith In Our Federal Bench, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Janus-Faced Judging: How The Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, Michael Gentithes

William & Mary Law Review

Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermining their trust in the judiciary. Stare decisis has traditionally limited the pace of such change on the Court. It is a bulwark against wholesale jurisprudential reversals. But, in recent years, the stare decisis doctrine has come under threat.

With little public or scholarly notice, the Supreme Court has radically weakened stare decisis in two ways. First, the Court has reversed its long-standing view that a precedent, regardless of the quality of its reasoning, should stand unless there is some special, practical justification to overrule it. Recent …

Yearning For An Independent Federal Judiciary, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

As She Lies In State, A Tribute To Justice Ginsburg, Katherine Mims Crocker

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Comments On Mcgahn "A Brief History Of Judicial Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration", Russell Wheeler

William & Mary Law Review Online

Donald McGahn is a respected member of the Washington D.C. legal community, known especially for his expertise in election law. He served as White House counsel in the Trump administration until October 2018 and was a key player in the Trump administration’s judicial appointments process.His article is witty, sometimes revealing, but above all a description, as he sees it, of the decades-long deterioration of the process for Senate confirmation of federal judicial nominees, with some blame assigning. He also provides a few behind-the-scenes looks at Trump administration confirmation battles, and some recommendations for easing contentiousness in— or at least, speeding …

Conservative Minimalism And The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

While Chief Justice Roberts's votes do not hew closely to what either conservatives or progressives would have preferred, it is a mistake to assume the chief justice has been arbitrary or inconsistent. Rather, the October 2019 Term offered further confirmation that Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative minimalist. While his jurisprudential orientation remains quite conservative, he prefers narrow rulings over sweeping judgments. "If it's not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more," he explained in his confirmation hearings. At the same time, Chief Justice Roberts is reluctant to …

Securities Exchange Act Section 4e(A): Toothless "Internal-Timing Directive" Or Statute Of Limitation?, Richard E. Brodsky

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission has a problem, and everyone knows it: its investigative process suffers from excessive delay, which harms both individuals and entity it investigates and its own enforcement program. This problem has long been recognized and complained about, but never remedied.

In 2010, Congress passed a law specifically designed to solve the problem of excessive delay but, the way the SEC has read the law—which has been acquiesced in by the courts and ignored by subsequent Congresses—has rendered it toothless and essentially meaningless. This has been accomplished, first, by the Commission’s cabined interpretation of the purpose of …

Protecting The Role Of The Press During Times Of Crisis, Mary-Rose Papandrea

William & Mary Law Review

President Trump’s daily tweets attacking the media have led many observers to express concern about the state of the press in our nation. Trump has called the press “the ... enemy of the [American] people,” encouraged a climate of hatred toward journalists at his rallies, refused to condemn Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing of reporter Jamal Khashoggi, and accused the media of writing “fake news.” The public’s trust in the institutional press has simultaneously diminished. Combined with the continuing economic challenges journalists face, the press is certainly facing some difficult times.

Nevertheless, things are not as dire as they …

Packing And Unpacking State Courts, Marin K. Levy

William & Mary Law Review

When it comes to court packing, questions of “should” and “can” are inextricably intertwined. The conventional wisdom has long been that federal court packing is something the President and Congress simply cannot do. Even though the Constitution’s text does not directly prohibit expanding or contracting the size of courts for political gain, many have argued that there is a longstanding norm against doing so, stemming from a commitment to judicial independence and separation of powers. And so (the argument goes), even though the political branches might otherwise be tempted to add or subtract seats to change the Court’s ideological makeup, …

Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang

William & Mary Law Review

Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …