Judges Commons^™

Do We Really Want Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices Practicing Law? A Public Policy Critique To U.S. Supreme Court Term Limits, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

In its 2021 final report, the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform discussed the merits of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Commission began by acknowledging that eighteen-year, non-renewable terms have considerable bipartisan support, including the support of both Conservative and Progressive scholars at the National Constitution Center, whose proposals for improving the Constitution included term limits for justices. They continued by weighing the pros and cons of implementing term limits via constitutional amendment or statute, addressing, in turn, the specifics of what these limits might look like—whether a twelve or eighteen-year term is preferable, how a transition from …

Supporting Comparative Studies Of Judicial Behavior: Introducing The Australian High Court Database, Patrick Leslie, Zoë Robinson, Russell Smyth, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

Comparative research on law and legal institutions depends on high-quality data infrastructure. This article introduces the Australian High Court Database—a new resource that encodes structured information on all full judgments of the High Court of Australia between 1995 and 2020, and all leave applications (Australia’s equivalent to petitions for certiorari) from 2003 to 2018. The database is built in accordance with core principles that support comparative research: it is adaptable, and comparable. By attending to jurisdictional specificity while adhering to general standards, the database supports both within-country analysis and cross-national comparison. We illustrate how the Australian High Court Database can …

The Empirical Double Standard: Opinion Surveys Across The Civil–Criminal Divide, Kay L. Levine, Bernard Chao

Faculty Articles

Across different legal domains, liability doctrines recognize the value of community input. But do courts truly listen to the community’s voice when deciding these sorts of cases? This study is the first to explore how courts treat community opinion survey evidence within both civil and criminal law. To that end, we comprehensively examine trademark, false advertising, patent, antitrust, obscenity, death penalty, and search cases.

Our research uncovers a significant asymmetry: Courts readily admit survey evidence in civil proceedings but systematically exclude it in criminal cases. This asymmetry does not appear to stem from structural differences between civil and criminal litigation …

Recusal Reform: Treating A Justice's Disqualification As A Legal Issue, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

This article addresses the pressing issue of recusal in the U.S. Supreme Court. It critiques the current practice of Supreme Court Justices deciding individually whether to recuse themselves from cases, highlighting the flaws and potential biases inherent in this practice. The authors advocate for a reform where initial recusal decisions are made by individual Justices but then are subject to review by the Supreme Court as a whole.

The article offers several arguments to support this proposal. First, the authors explore the evolution of recusal laws, focusing on the significant amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 455 in 1948 and 1974. …

Expertise, Ideology, And Dissent, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Jonathan R. Nash, Jason Rantanen

Faculty Articles

Part I sketches a theory of dissent, explaining how voting and opinion-writing behavior on a multi-member court, such as a federal court of appeals, is a function of both a judge's preferences, as well as costs, including the relational disruption that comes from disagreeing with colleagues.

Part II provides background on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as a survey of prior studies of decision-making on the court and explanations of those studies' limitations.

Part III describes our methodology, including the novel dataset we built for the purpose of this study.

Part IV conducts a …

Katz'S Imperfect Circle: An Empirical Study Of Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy, Tonja Jacobi, Christopher Brett Jaeger

Faculty Articles

Under Katz v. United States, the Fourth Amendment restricts government actions that infringe upon expectations of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. This foundational test has long been criticized as circular, both because courts can shape the very expectations they seek to identify through their decisions and because governments can manipulate those expectations to expand the reach of their own power. But how do members of society decide what expectations are reasonable, and how do judges ascertain those expectations? And are expectations of privacy malleable even without deliberate manipulation?

This Article shows that the circularity critique is both understated …

Can Litigation Analytics Tell Us What Became Of The 2015 Proportionality Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure?, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

In 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery were amended for the seventh time in 40 years–part of a cyclic effort to address the so-called “cost and delay” of litigation. The centerpiece of the amendments was the reconfigured requirement that requested discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case,” in addition to being relevant and nonprivileged. The concept of “proportionality” crystallized the 2015 amendments in a single mantra. The proposed amendments inspired passionate and polarized public reactions. Plaintiffs’ attorneys opposed them as an impediment to obtaining the discovery they needed to prove their case, particularly in …

Partisan Panel Composition And Reliance On Earlier Opinions In The Circuit Courts, Stuart M. Benjamin, Byungkoo Kim, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

Does the partisan composition of three-judge panels affect how earlier opinions are treated and thus how the law develops? Using a novel data set of Shepard’s treatments for all cases decided in the U.S. courts of appeals from 1974 to 2017, we investigate three different versions of this question. First, are panels composed of three Democratic (Republican) appointees more likely to follow opinions decided by panels of three Democratic (Republican) appointees than are panels composed of three Republican (Democratic) appointees? Second, does the presence of a single out-party judge change how a panel relies on earlier decisions compared to what …

When Is Legal Methodology Binding?, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Common-law interpretive methodologies are mostly nonbinding, but some interpretive methodologies are seen as binding precedent. This Article offers an explanation for this state of affairs. Whereas the extant scholarship on common-law interpretive methodologies offers descriptive accounts (often assuming that common-law methodologies are per se nonbinding) and normative analysis, this Article fills a gap in the literature by providing a realist explanation for the legal landscape of binding interpretive methodologies. It identifies whether a methodology is rule-like, and whether it increases judicial legitimacy and/or court power as “pull factors”—that is, incentives that might attract judges to recognize interpretive methodologies as binding. …

Institutional Design And The Predictability Of Judicial Interruptions At Oral Argument, Tonja Jacobi, Patrick Leslie, Zoë Robinson

Faculty Articles

Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and …

When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner: Justice In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence (Book Review), Stacy Fowler

Faculty Articles

In When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, former federal judge Katherine Forrest raises concerns over the pervasive use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the American justice system to produce risks and need assessments (RNA) regarding the probability of recidivism for citizens charged with a crime. Forrest’s argument centers on AI’s primary focus on utilitarian outcomes when assessing liberty for individual citizens. This approach leads Forrest to the conclusion that in its current form, AI is “ill-suited to the criminal justice context.” Forrest contends that AI should instead be programmed to focus on John Rawl’ 'concept of justice as …

Taking Corrigibility Seriously, Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

This article argues that the Supreme Court's creation of a category of "irreparably corrupt" juveniles is not only an epistemological mistake but also a tactical mistake which has undermined the Court's express desire that only in the "rarest" of cases will juveniles be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Twenty-First Century Split: Partisan, Racial, And Gender Differences In Circuit Judges Following Earlier Opinions, Stuart M. Benjamin, Byungkoo Kim, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

Judges shape the law with their votes and the reasoning in their opinions. An important element of the latter is which opinions they follow, and thus elevate, and which they cast doubt on, and thus diminish. Using a unique and comprehensive dataset containing the substantive Shepard’s treatments of all circuit court published and unpublished majority opinions issued between 1974 and 2017, we examine the relationship between judges’ substantive treatments of earlier appellate cases and their party, race, and gender. Are judges more likely to follow opinions written by colleagues of the same party, race, or gender? What we find …

Supreme Court Interruptions And Interventions: The Changing Role Of The Chief Justice, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

Interruptions at Supreme Court oral argument have received much attention in recent years, particularly the disproportionate number of interruptions directed at the female Justices. The Supreme Court changed the structure of oral argument to try to address this problem. This Article assesses whether the frequency and gender disparity of interruptions of Justices improved in recent years, and whether the structural change in argument helped. It shows that interruptions decreased during the pandemic but then resurged to near-record highs, as has the gender disparity in Justice-to-Justice interruptions. However, although the rate of advocate interruptions of Justices also remains historically high, for …

Role-Reversibility, Ai, And Equitable Justice — Or: Why Mercy Cannot Be Automated, Stephen E. Henderson, Kiel Brennan-Marquez

Faculty Articles

A few years ago, we developed the concept of “role-reversibility” in AI governance: the idea that it matters whether a party exercising judgment is reciprocally vulnerable to the effects of judgment. This idea, we argued, supplies a deontic reason to maintain certain spheres of human judgment even if (or when) truly intelligent machines become demonstrably superior in every utilitarian sense. While computer science remains far from that holy grail, generative AI is raging through systems as diverse as healthcare, finance, advertising, law, and academe, making it imperative to further shore up our claim. We do so by situating role-reversibility within …

The Appearance Of Appearances, Michael Ariens

Faculty Articles

The Framers argued judicial independence was necessary to the success of the American democratic experiment. Independence required judges possess and act with integrity. One aspect of judicial integrity was impartiality. Impartial judging was believed crucial to public confidence that the decisions issued by American courts followed the rule of law. Public confidence in judicial decision making promoted faith and belief in an independent judiciary. The greater the belief in the independent judiciary, the greater the chance of continued success of the republic.

During the nineteenth century, state constitutions, courts, and legislatures slowly expanded the instances in which a judge was …

In Celebration Of Dissents (And Lengthy Textbooks): How Digital Became Different For The Fourth Amendment And Why It Is Time For A Real Warrant Default, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

The last decade has brought tremendous change to the Fourth Amendment, finally resulting in a ‘digital is different’ norm. We stand at an inflection point between a monolithic, analog past and a murky future of yet-unarticulated constitutional digital policing rules. It is a good time, then, to reflect upon how we came to be here and where we ought to go. This Essay first looks back to a monumental, majestic dissent: that of Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1928 decision of Olmstead v. United States. Every American, and especially every law student, ought to know that opinion, and judges …

The Jury Veto, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

While the American civic religion is to be distrustful of government, feelings of discontent regarding our systems of criminal investigation and adjudication feel historic. And while those systems are capable of great carnage en route, the endgame is, ultimately, criminal punishment. Yet before punishment can be imposed, every prosecution—and therefore every defendant—is meant to encounter a potential “circuit breaker”: the jury. I propose that we re-inject this democratic voice into our criminal adjudications, but through an entirely novel structure: the defendant (and perhaps the prosecutor) would have the choice of invoking a jury empowered to ‘veto’ any judicial sentence. By …

Shadow Dockets Lite, Hayley Stillwell

Faculty Articles

Inherent to the role of judges is the obligation to explain themselves and to create precedent—which is why the U.S. Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has recently garnered ample criticism. Unfortunately, other courts share these deficiencies. Oklahoma Supreme Court justices often decline to vote without explanation. They also note their disagreement with some or all of an opinion, but fail to explain why. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges decide whether an opinion is unpublished—and thus nonprecedential—without explanation. These practices are “shadow dockets lite” because they are more consistent with the role of judges than the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, but …

Judges In Lawyerless Courts, Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, Jessica Steinberg, Alyx Mark

Faculty Articles

The typical American civil trial court is lawyerless. In response, access to justice reformers have embraced a key intervention: changing the judge’s traditional role. The prevailing vision for judicial role reform calls on trial judges to offer accommodation, information, and process simplification to people without legal representation. Until now, scholars have known little about judicial behavior in lawyerless courts, including whether and how judges are implementing role reform recommendations. Our lack of knowledge stands in stark contrast to the responsibility civil trial judges bear—and the discretionary power they wield—in dispensing justice for millions of unrepresented people each year. While today’s …

Behind Bartkus: A Flamboyant Lawyer, A Vindictive Judge, And The Untold Story Of Double Jeopardy’S Dual Sovereignty, Stephen E. Henderson, Dean Strang

Faculty Articles

A young defense attorney earns his client, charged in federal court with bank robbery, a jury acquittal. (It’s the attorney’s first.) One would expect the impartial judge to thank the jury for its service. Instead, this one harangues both jury and defense attorney (“entailing changes in his complexion from red to purple to dead white”), publicly rails against the verdict, attempts to bar the jurors from future service, refuses to release the defendant, and successfully prods prosecutors to bring a duplicative state prosecution that would end in conviction for the same crime. To anyone who respects the rule of law—or …

Abolishing The Communications Decency Act Might Sanitize "Political Biased," "Digitally Polluted," And "Dangerously Toxic" Social Media? - Judicial And Statistical Guidance From Federal-Preemption, Safe-Harbor And Rights-Preservation Decisions, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Sitting and former U.S. Presidents, as well as members of the general public, financial, political and educational institutions, use social media. Yet, an overwhelming majority of users, content creators, parents, "conservatives," "progressives," Democrats, and Republicans distrust social media owners. Some critics allege that owners "digitally pollute" platforms by encouraging users to post "corrosive, dangerous, toxic, and illegal content." Other critics assert that service providers' purportedly objective content moderation algorithms are biased-discriminating irrationally on the basis of users' political association, ideology, socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity. Republicans and Democrats have crafted roughly twenty bills on this matter. In theory, the enacted …

Judges And The Deregulation Of The Lawyer's Monopoly, Jessica Steinberg, Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, Alyx Mark

Faculty Articles

In a revolutionary moment for the legal profession, the deregulation of legal services is taking hold in many parts of the country. Utah and Arizona, for instance, are experimenting with new regulations that permit nonlawyer advocates to play an active role in assisting citizens who may not otherwise have access to legal services. In addition, amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in both states, as well as those being contemplated in California, now allow nonlawyers to have a partnership stake in law firms, which may dramatically change the way capital for the delivery of legal services is raised as …

Oral Argument In The Time Of Covid: The Chief Justice Plays Calvinball, Tonja Jacobi, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

In this Article, we empirically assess the Supreme Court’s experiment in hearing telephonic oral arguments. We compare the telephonic hearings to those heard in person by the current Court and examine whether the Justices followed norms of fairness and equality. We show that the telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the Chief Justice new power, and that Chief Justice Roberts, knowingly or unknowingly, used that new power to benefit his ideological allies. We also show that the Chief interrupted the female Justices disproportionately more than the male Justices and gave the male Justices …

"Will The Real Mens Rea Please Stand Up: Assessing The Fifth Circuit's Kickback Jurisprudence After United States V. Nora, John J. Locurto

Faculty Articles

When an appellate court goes out of its way to note, not once but twice, that a defendant convicted of fraud and conspiracy was just twenty-two years old and had only a high school degree when he joined a criminal venture, it is probably a safe bet that a reversal is coming. That is exactly what happened in United States v. Nora. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned young Jonathon Nora's conviction for his part in a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud Medicare. The case is, sadly enough, nondescript as health care frauds go, except for …

Partisan Voting On The California Supreme Court, Mark P. Gergen, David A. Carrillo, Benjamin M. Chen, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

When did ideology become the major fault line of the California Supreme Court? To answer this question, we use a two-parameter item response theory (IRT) model to identify voting patterns in non-unanimous decisions by California Supreme Court justices from 1910 to 2011. The model shows that voting on the court became polarized on recognizably partisan lines beginning in the mid-1900s. Justices usually did not vote in a pattern that matched their political reputations and party affiliation during the first half of the century. This began to change in the 1950s. After 1959 the dominant voting pattern is partisan and closely …

#Sowhitemale: Federal Procedural Rulemaking Committees, Brooke D. Coleman

Faculty Articles

Of the 630 members of a specialized set of committees responsible for drafting the federal rules for civil and criminal litigation, 591 of them have been white. That is 94 percent of the committee membership. Of that same group, 513—or 81 percent—have been white men. Decisionmaking bodies do better work when their members are diverse; these rulemaking committees are no exception. The Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure are not mere technical instructions, nor are they created by a neutral set of experts. To the contrary, the Rules embody normative judgments about what values trump others, and the rulemakers—while experts—are …

Reshaping American Jurisprudence In The Trump Era - The Rise Of Originalist Judges, Jeffrey F. Addicott

Faculty Articles

One of the factors that is often cited as a key reason why President Donald J. Trump was elected as the forty-fifth president, was his pledge to the American people to "make America great again" by appointing "conservative judges" to the bench, particularly when it came to filling any vacancies that might open on the United States Supreme Court. Since the never ending fight for securing an ideological majority on the Supreme Court is always viewed with great concern by both political parties, many wondered whether then candidate Trump was simply telling potential voters what they wanted to hear, or …

The Federalism Challenges Of Protecting Medical Privacy In Workers' Compensation, Ani B. Satz

Faculty Articles

This Article is the first to address the challenges of federalism in protecting medical privacy in workers’ compensation after the promulgation of the HPR and to propose legal change. The Article argues that workers’ compensation programs must align with the federal privacy protections of the HPR and proposes actions for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states to remedy departures. Part I discusses the complex relationship between the HPR and workers’ compensation. This relationship is often misunderstood by legislatures and courts, compounding the challenges of federalism in this area. Specifically, Part I addresses the HPR’s § …

Taking Laughter Seriously At The Supreme Court, Tonja Jacobi, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

Laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments has been misunderstood, treated as either a lighthearted distraction from the Court’s serious work, or interpreted as an equalizing force in an otherwise hierarchical environment. Examining the more than nine thousand instances of laughter witnessed at the Court since 1955, this Article shows that the Justices of the Supreme Court use courtroom humor as a tool of advocacy and a signal of their power and status. As the Justices have taken on a greater advocacy role in the modern era, they have also provoked more laughter.

The performative nature of courtroom humor is apparent …