Judges Commons^™

The Local Rules Revolution In Criminal Discovery, Daniel S. Mcconkie

Cardozo Law Review

Over the last few decades, federal district court judges throughout the country have used local rules to greatly expand pretrial criminal disclosure obligations, especially for prosecutors. These local criminal discovery rules both incentivize prosecutors to act as ministers of justice and empower judges to manage prosecutorial disclosures. This quiet revolution is now well underway, and the time has come to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to bring these innovations to all the districts.

Commentators have long recognized that neither Supreme Court precedent nor the Federal Rules effectively require prosecutors to provide the defense with enough discovery to properly …

The Core Case For Weak-Form Judicial Review, Rosalind Dixon

Cardozo Law Review

This Article contributes to debates over the democratic desirability of judicial review, by stating a quasi-general case for the desirability of judicial review that is "weak"-or broad but non-final-rather than "strong"-form in nature. Judicial review of this kind, the article argues, can help counter blockages in the legislative process-such as legislative "blind spots" and "burdens of inertia"-that can otherwise impair the enjoyment of individual rights even of a kind recognized by democratic majorities. This, the Article suggests, provides an important, if contingent, outcome-based case in favor of courts exercising powers of weak-form review. The case for weak judicial review of …

Shifting The Landscape On Access To Justice, Jonathan Lippman

Cardozo Law Review

The essay emphasizes the critical need to address the justice gap faced by the poor and vulnerable, advocating for proactive measures by the judiciary, legal profession, and academia. It highlights initiatives in New York, such as increased public funding, expanded pro bono efforts, and innovative programs, to ensure equal access to justice, potentially leading to a right to counsel in civil cases.

The Constitutionality Of Sec Administrative Proceedings: The Sec Should Cure Its Alj Appointment Scheme, Kaela Dahan

Cardozo Law Review

The note examines the constitutional challenges surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of administrative law judges (ALJs), particularly under Section 929P of the Dodd-Frank Act. It argues that the SEC's ALJ appointment process violates the Appointments Clause, as current ALJs have not been properly appointed by SEC Commissioners. The note also highlights due process and Seventh Amendment concerns, as defendants in SEC administrative proceedings lack rights such as trial by jury and immediate appellate review. To maintain the integrity of its administrative processes, the SEC must adopt measures to ensure its ALJ appointments comply with constitutional requirements.

Maximinimalism, Jamal Greene

Cardozo Law Review

The article explores Chief Justice John Roberts' judicial approach, characterizing it as "maximinimalism"—a blend of narrow decision-making with deep, impactful reasoning. While Roberts is often seen as a minimalist for his emphasis on deciding cases narrowly, his rulings in significant cases like Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, and NFIB v. Sebelius reveal a deeper, more substantive approach that challenges the law, thus embodying maximalist tendencies. This duality allows the Court to influence the law profoundly while maintaining judicial restraint.

Bargaining In The Shadow Of Children's Voices In Divorce Custody Disputes: Comparative Analysis Of Japan And The U.S., Hiroharu Saito

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This paper discusses the social impact of hearing children's wishes in judicial procedures for divorce custody disputes by comparing the different legal systems in Japan and the U.S. In particular, through a plain law and economics approach with the analytical framework of "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law" suggested by Mnookin and Kornhauser (1979), this paper discusses the backlash to parents' bargaining outside the court by empowering children to be heard in court.

There has been a child advocacy movement in Japan to empower children's participation right in the judicial procedures in accordance with the UN Convention on the …

Whole Other Story: Applying Narrative Mediation To The Immigration Beat, Carol Pauli

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

If Donald Trump, in kicking off his campaign for the White House, was saying "what everyone is thinking" about illegal immigration, it must be that his message mirrored a narrative that already existed in the minds of his audience. That fearful story of criminals invading the U.S. borders has long been a dominant theme in the mainstream news immigration story. Like all news stories, this one focuses attention on some facts at the expense of others. Like many news stories, it draws its power from earlier, well-known tales-some as old as The Flood. This article reconsiders news stories-and the storytelling …

Land Use Consultations Advancing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Ripe For Clinical Trials, Michael N. Widener

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This paper proposes educating law students in the processes of therapeutic justice through service as a neutral in land use controversies, and in the process, improving law student dispute resolution skills and enabling them to promote therapeutic outcomes.

Justice Scalia, The 2016 Presidential Election, And The Future Of Church-State Relations, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Court Arbitration By Compromise: Rethinking Delaware's State Sponsored Arbitration Case, Yuval Sinai, Michal Alberstein

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

International Law And National Courts: Between Mutual Empowerment And Mutual Weakening, Osnat Grady Schwartz

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

Over the past two decades, national courts have increasingly engaged with international law in fields and cases they used to avoid before. This Article argues that national courts' voluntary/discretionary application of international law and their greater openness to it are incentivized by the power offered to courts by international law. It empowers them directly - through making them direct subjects of it, advancing the rule of law, and offering institutional backup in the form of international courts and tribunals - and indirectly - by offering them a normative tool kit to be used in their decisions and amplify their legitimacy. …

High Court Pretense, Lower Court Candor: Judicial Impartiality After Caperton V. Massey Coal Co., Lynne H. Rambo

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

No abstract provided.

Judges As Gatekeepers To Mediation: The Russian Case, Kathryn Hendley

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In this Article, I investigate the role of judges in mediation in Russia. Using a mixed-methods approach that draws on my fieldwork in Russian courts as well as a 2013 survey of Russian judges, I explore their attitudes towards mediation and their willingness to recommend it to litigants. I use the survey data to inquire into the factors that tend to predict both their attitudes and behavior vis-avis mediation. The analysis reveals a remarkable division between judges' attitudes and their behavior. The surveyed judges are generally enthusiastic about the introduction of mediation, but this enthusiasm is not always reflected in …

Judicial Conflict Resolution (Jcr): A New Jurisprudence For An Emerging Judicial Practice, Michal Alberstein

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

In the past few decades, the role of judges has changed dramatically, yet its nature has remained largely unexplored. To date, most cases settle or reach plea-bargaining, and the greater part of judges' time is spent on managing cases and encouraging parties to reach consensual solutions. Adjudication based on formal rules is a rare phenomenon which judges mostly avoid. This Article argues that the various Conflict Resolution methods, which are used outside the courtroom, as alternatives to adjudication, could have a strong and positive influence, both theoretical and practical, on judicial activities inside the courts. Theoretically, the Article develops a …

The Future Of Sex Offense Courts: How Expanding Specialized Sex Offense Courts Can Help Reduce Recidivism And Improve Victim Reporting, Catharine Richmond, Melissa Richmond

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

Specialty sex offense courts are a nascent judicial innovation that seek to improve general public safety by reducing recidivism. Decreased recidivism results from swifter, personalized, experienced, and consistent judicial action that encourages sex offenders to take more responsibility and seek rehabilitative assistance. In these specialized courts, communities of stakeholders work collaboratively to prevent future crime. Although somewhat counterintuitive, specialty courts that offer such intensive and specific attention are often more cost effective and efficient than their traditional counterparts are. This Article posits that sex offense courts should be expanded beyond the handful of jurisdictions where they currently exist, not only …

The Current State Of The Consumer Class Action, Myriam E. Gilles, Samuel Issacharoff, Andrew J. Pincus, Theodore D. Rave

Articles

No abstract provided.

Mos Americanus Or Common Law In Partibus Infidelium, Peter Goodrich

Articles

No abstract provided.

A Tribute To Eva Hanks, Matthew Diller

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Way The Court Gauges Consensus (And How To Do It Better), Robert J. Smith, Bidish J. Sarma, Sophie Cull

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court gauges whether a national consensus against a punishment exists by reference to a number of objective indicators. Despite its reliance on these external indicators, scholars have characterized the Court's consensus analysis as little more than a crude charade performed by outcome-oriented Justices. The consensus analysis does lack both transparency and a stable infrastructure, but as this Article demonstrates, commentators are too quick to overlook the possibility that a stable and tightly theorized framework could equip the Court to gauge societal consensus and reduce the perception that the analysis is outcome-driven.

When it comes to consensus analysis, the …

The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Overruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumed Imminence: Judicial Risk Assessment In The Post-9/11 World, Avidan Y. Cover

Cardozo Law Review

Court opinions in the terrorism context are often distinguished by fact-finding that relates to risk assessment. These risk assessments - inherently policy decisions - are influenced by cultural cognition and by cognitive errors common to probability determinations, particularly those made regarding highly dangerous and emotional events. In a post-9/11 world, in which prevention and intelligence are prioritized over prosecution, courts are more likely to overstate the potential harm, neglect the probability, and presume the imminence of terrorist attacks. As a result, courts are apt to defer to the government and require less evidence in support of measures that curtail civil …

When A U.S. Domestic Court Can Enjoin A Foreign Court Proceeding, Samantha Koeninger, Richard Bales

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

A federal court, at its discretion, may enjoin a parallel proceeding in a foreign court. Currently, there is a split among the federal courts of appeals as to the circumstances under which an anti-suit injunction should be granted. The Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the "liberal approach." These courts have found that a court may enjoin a foreign proceeding if the parallel litigation is vexatious and duplicative. In contrast, the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have adopted the "restrictive approach." These courts require a higher standard, and have found that if the parallel litigation is …

Nlrb V. Noel Canning Presents A Nonjusticiable Political Question, Victor Williams

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Article argues that the Noel Canning challenge to the President’s use of his recess appointment authority presents a nonjusticiable political question. The work draws from arguments developed for this author’s Supreme Court amicus briefs in Noel Canning, other amicus briefs lodged during the past year for related actions in the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, and a variety of this author’s commentary on federal appointments.

Asbestos Lawsuits In Russia: Bring One If You Can, Anna Linetskaya

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the challenges faced by asbestos victims in Russia in seeking legal redress, highlighting the barriers posed by the country's legal system, lack of regulatory oversight, and the dominance of the asbestos industry. It argues that despite the existence of tort law as a potential avenue for relief, numerous structural and procedural obstacles deter victims from pursuing claims, underscoring the need for legal reforms to improve access to justice.

The Controversy Over Citations To Foreign Authorities In American Constitutional Adjudication And The Conflict Of Judicial Philosophies: A Reply To Professor Glendon, Michel Rosenfeld

Articles

The controversy over U.S. Supreme Court justices citing foreign authorities in constitutional cases reflects a deeper ideological divide between restrictive and expansive judicial philosophies. This debate, evident in cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons, transcends traditional labels like originalism or political ideology, focusing instead on whether judges should defer to majoritarian decisionmaking or actively shape evolving rights. The article argues that the furor over foreign citations will diminish once the broader philosophical clash over judicial interpretation is resolved, as differences over foreign authorities are secondary to this central divide.

The Courts And National Security: The Ordeal Of The State Secrets Privilege, David Rudenstine

Articles

The state secrets privilege, originally established in United States v. Reynolds, has evolved into a powerful tool for the Executive to shield actions from judicial scrutiny, undermining the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances. This expansion, driven by judicial deference and circuit court interpretations, now prioritizes national security over accountability, threatening core legal principles. The article argues for reform to balance national security concerns with judicial oversight and individual rights.

Self-Government And The Judicial Function, David Rudenstine

Articles

No abstract provided.

Mock Trials And Real Justices And Judges, Richard A. Posner

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Civility Mandatory: Moving From Aspired To Required, David A. Grenardo

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article advocates for the adoption of mandatory civility rules in all state bars, emphasizing that voluntary codes and oaths are insufficient to address incivility among attorneys. It argues that mandatory civility is essential for the efficient administration of justice, public confidence in the legal system, and the integrity of the legal profession. The author proposes specific rules promoting courteous communication, honesty, and respect, aligning with existing professional conduct standards. The article concludes that mandatory civility, supported by education and consistent enforcement, is crucial for maintaining professionalism and fairness in the legal system.

The Second Circuit’S En Banc Crisis, Mario Lucero

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Part I of this Note is an empirical survey of the history of the en banc practice in the Second Circuit. First is an explanation of the en banc process and an examination of the hearings en banc that did take place and their outcomes in the Supreme Court. Second is a discussion of the mini en banc, which is the practice of circulating opinions that serves as an abbreviated substitute for full en banc hearings. Third is an examination of the myriad opinions that have been inspired by the denials of rehearing en banc, with special attention to the …