Judges Commons^™

Judging In The Age Of Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Real Constitutional Problem With State Judicial Selection: Due Process, Judicial Retention, And The Dangers Of Popular Constitutionalism, Martin H. Redish, Jennifer Aronoff

William & Mary Law Review

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., decided in 2009, the Supreme Court held for the first time that conduct related to a judicial election campaign violated a litigant’s right to procedural due process because the opposing litigant had contributed an inordinate amount of money to the campaign of one of the justices ruling on the case. The due process danger recognized in Caperton rests on a fear of retrospective gratitude—that is, the fear that the Justice would decide his contributor’s case differently because he was grateful for the litigant’s generous support. The Court’s focus on retrospective gratitude is …

Robert Bork & Commercial Speech, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Before he redefined antitrust, Judge Robert Bork took aim at the First Amendment. Though his work in this area was not nearly as influential, it received substantial attention, particularly after President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Bork to replace Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court in 1987. Judge Bork's 1971 article, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems challenged the prevailing wisdom on the proper scope of First Amendment protections. In this article, published seven years before The Antitrust Paradox, Bork maintained that only "explicitly political" speech warranted constitutional protection. Other types of speech or expression, including much indisputably …

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 …

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 …

Administrative Judges And Agency Policy Development: The Koch Way, Ronald M. Levin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Among the creative contributions that the late Charles H. Koch, Jr., made to administrative law thinking was his exploration of the present and potential role of administrative judges as policymakers. Charles stood in firm opposition to recent trends that, in his view, had served to strengthen the policymaking role of administrative judges at the expense of agency heads. He insisted that ultimate control over the policy direction of a program should rest with the officials who have been appointed to administer that program. While adhering to this baseline, however, Charles gravitated over time toward a nuanced view that sought to …

Hierarchically Variable Deference To Agency Interpretations, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

When courts review agency action, they typically accord agency decisions a degree of deference. As many courts and commentators have recognized, the law in this area is complicated because it features numerous standards of review, including several distinct regimes for evaluating agencies’ legal interpretations. There is, however, at least one important respect in which uniformity rather than variety prevails: the applicable standards of review do not vary depending on which court is reviewing the agency. Whichever standard governs a particular case—Chevron, Skidmore, or something else—all courts in the judicial hierarchy are supposed to apply that same standard.

This Article proposes …

Judicial Activism And The Problem Of Induction, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

A comment on Suzanna Sherry’s "Why We Need More Judicial Activism."

First, Do No Harm: On Addressing The Problem Of Implicit Bias In Juror Decision Making, Jennifer K. Elek, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

Courts have extremely limited opportunities to educate jurors about the pernicious effects of complex psychological phenom­ena like implicit bias and how these implicit forms of bias may distort jurors' interpretation of trial evidence. This article focuses on several of these interventions and the factors that may increase or undermine their effectiveness. Most Americans are aware of the existence of explicit bias and its effects on decision making generally, but implicit bias is still a relatively new concept about which many people in the justice system are unaware. The first section of this article discusses the difference between explicit bias and …

Reconsidering Recusals: The Need For Requirements For When Not To Recuse, Mason E. Lowe

Faculty Publications

In the American judiciary system, it is imperative that judges act free of bias. Although this seems to be an easy-enough-to-understand theory, its practical application is not always so simple. As a result, there have been wide-ranging, unpredictable, and sometimes undesirable results. Others have noted the need for clearer recusal rules and guidelines. There have been various suggestions for how to improve or reform recusal rules, all of which note that there is a lack of standardized and predictable rules for when judges are required to recuse themselves. These previous suggestions have correctly identified the root of the problem and …

Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Publications

This Article considers whether differences in methods of judicial selection should influence how judges approach statutory interpretation. Courts and scholars have not given this question much sustained attention, but most would probably embrace the “unified model,” according to which appointed judges (such as federal judges) and elected judges (such as many state judges) are supposed to approach statutory text in identical ways. There is much to be said for the unified model—and we offer the first systematic defense of it. But the Article also attempts to make the best case for the more controversial but also plausible contrary view: that …

Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Is statutory interpretation an activity that all courts should perform the same way? Courts and commentators implicitly so conclude. I believe that conclusion is wrong. Statutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.

I identify three kinds of institutional differences between courts that bear on which interpretive methods are appropriate: (1) the court’s place in the hierarchical structure of appellate review, (2) the court’s technical capacity and resources, and (3) the court’s democratic pedigree, particularly as reflected …

The Religious Liberty Of Judges, Daniel R. Suhr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article begins by reviewing the government employee line of cases, starting with United Public Workers v. Mitchell in 1947.29 The first section concludes that the modified Pickering balancing test set forth in United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is the appropriate level of scrutiny for judicial conduct rules. The body of this Article reviews ways in which the four canons of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Ethics and official interpretations of and rulings regarding them limit the religious activities of judges. I conclude that numerous applications of the Model Code are unconstitutional infringements on judges’ First …

Listening To Victims, Jayne W. Barnard

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Ethical Guidance For A Grander Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Publications

Section I of this Note explores the extent to which the American Bar Association (ABA) Practice Guide, and similar major ethical conventions and advisory opinions, present competing interpretations of the grand jury's role in the criminal justice system. The lack of prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence, grand jury secrecy, and the abundance of plea negotiations demonstrate how historicized visions of the grand jury are appropriated to serve distinct conceptions of the institution's proper role. Section II offers a historical narrative of the grand jury that places grand jurors' "local knowledge" and experience at the heart of an inherently interpretive and …

Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Justice Souter’s recent retirement from the Court after nearly twenty years presents a unique opportunity to comment on his legacy. No doubt others will eulogize or castigate him for his membership in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey troika, but there is much more to the man and his jurisprudence. Indeed, the danger is that Justice Souter will be pigeonholed into one opinion, an opinion that he wrote early in his Supreme Court career, to the detriment of understanding the complex justice that he was. And what it finds is a justice deeply committed to the fair treatment of the litigants …

Why The Supreme Court Cares About Elites, Not The American People, Lawrence Baum, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

Supreme Court Justices care more about the views of academics, journalists, and other elites than they do about public opinion. This is true of nearly all Justices and is especially true of swing Justices, who often cast the critical votes in the Court’s most visible decisions. In this Article, we will explain why we think this is so and, in so doing, challenge both the dominant political science models of judicial behavior and the significant work of Barry Friedman, Jeffrey Rosen, and others who link Supreme Court decision making to public opinion.

Finding Data And Statistics On Judges, Leslie A. Street

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Impeachment As Judicial Selection?, Tuan Samahon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Original Sin And Judicial Independence: Providing Accountability For Justices, Paul D. Carrington, Roger C. Cramton

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administrative Judges' Role In Developing Social Policy, Charles H. Koch Jr.

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

National Jury Improvement Efforts, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Nicole L. Waters

Faculty Publications

Until recently, the impact of specific jury improvement efforts was based on anecdotal reports from courts scattered across the country. In April 2007, the NCSC Center for Jury Studies released its findings from the State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts, which provides a comprehensive snapshot of jury procedures, operations, and practices in state and local courts. For the first time, courts have base-line information about their peers against which they can assess their own performance on a number of key operational measures. This issue of Caseload Highlights describes these measures and the approaches that state courts have implemented to improve …

Judicial Nullification? Judicial Compliance And Non-Compliance With Jury Improvement Efforts, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

The present article explores the formal and informal factors that contribute to variation in state and local jury trial practices, and especially judicial compliance with mandatory practices and prohibitions. Part II describes the State-of­ the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts, its methodology, and its basic findings concerning the variation in use of different trial practices. Part III discusses how various formal and informal factors affect the judicial use of those practices. Because the practice of permitting jurors to submit written questions to witnesses has received greater attention, and generated greater debate and dissension in both case law and state and …

Ideological Cohesion And Precedent (Or Why The Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other), Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the profound role that ideological cohesion plays in explaining the Supreme Court's willingness to advance a coherent vision of the law - either by overruling precedents inconsistent with that vision or by establishing rule-like precedents intended to bind the Supreme Court and lower courts in subsequent cases. Through case studies of the New Deal, Warren, and Rehnquist Courts, this Article calls attention to key differences between Courts in which five or more Justices pursue the same substantive objectives and Courts which lack a dominant voting block. In particular, when five or more Justices pursue the same substantive …

Perpetual Dissents, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

When All Eyes Are Watching: Trial Characteristics And Practices In Notorious Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

In part because of their relative scarcity and the uniqueness of each new notorious trial, it is difficult to generalize the effects of trial notori­ety. However, a recent study by the National Center for State Courts Center for Jury Studies reveals infor­mation about the prevalence of notorious trials and their impact on trial procedures and practices. The State-of-the-States Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts collected trial reports from nearly 12,000 jury trials conducted in state and federal courts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The vast majority of trials took place between 2002 and 2006.

In the survey, …

If The Judicial Confirmation Process Is Broken, Can A Statute Fix It?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Proposal: Codification By Statute Of The Judicial Confirmation Process, Charles W. Pickering

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Jury Innovation In Practice: The Experience In New York And Elsewhere, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

The article analyzes data reported in the National Center for State Courts 2006 survey of civil and criminal jury trial practice. The focus is on New York's use of various techniques to improve jury participation compared to use by nearby states, Connecticut and New Jersey, and other state courts. Innovative techniques discussed include juror notebooks, note-taking, juror questions of witnesses, and jury instructions. The article concludes that New York's courts lag behind other state courts in adopting these practices, and that both success in practice and ABA recommendations should be persuasive to New York judges that improvements can be made …