Judges Commons^™

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Recalibrating Federal Judicial Independence Symposium: Perspectives On Judicial Independence: Accountability And Separation Of Power Issues, James J. Brudney

Faculty Scholarship

It is well settled that independent courts play a vital role in promoting rule-of-law and separation-of-powers norms. At the same time, judicial independence must be reconciled with other values that we also wish to recognize as foundational. Professor Brudney addresses two areas of controversy that are associated with the celebration of judicial autonomy in our legal culture. He first discusses the role of political and personal background factors in shaping judicial selection and influencing judicial outcomes. He explains why both the President and Congress have come to rely increasingly on such background factors when seeking to anticipate the broad contours …

The Political (Science) Context Of Judging, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reining In The American Litigator: The New Role Of American Judges, Richard L. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Norm Of Prior Judicial Experience And Its Consequences For Career Diversity On The U.S. Supreme Court, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Incentives Approach To Patent Settlements: A Commentary On Hovenkamp, Janis & Lemley, Maureen A. O'Rourke

Faculty Scholarship

Professors Hovenkamp, Janis, and Lemley have attempted to clarify one of the most vexing issues facing antitrust and intellectual property law today: What analytical framework should antitrust authorities and courts use in considering whether patent settlement agreements in infringement cases violate the antitrust laws? The issue is complex because many ostensibly anticompetitive restraints in settlement agreements are perfectly legal if the underlying patent right is valid. Unfortunately, in some cases, the relevant patents are either invalid or not infringed. Thus, the antitrust analysis hinges on resolution of an intellectual property question.

Law And Judicial Duty, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Two hundred years ago, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion that has come to dominate modern discussions of constitutional law. Faced with a conflict between an act of Congress and the U.S. Constitution, he explained what today is known as "judicial review." Marshall described judicial review in terms of a particular type of "superior law" and a particular type of "judicial duty." Rather than speak generally about the hierarchy within law, he focused on "written constitutions."

He declared that the U.S. Constitution is "a superior, paramount law" and that if "the constitution is superior to any …

Marbury And Judicial Deference: The Shadow Of Whittington V. Polk And The Maryland Judiciary Battle, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

On the 200th anniversary of Whittington and approaching the 200th anniversary of Marbury, this article revisits these two decisions and challenges legal scholars' assumptions that they were such strong precedents for judicial review.⁵ When one takes into account the broader contexts, both decisions were in fact judicial capitulations to aggressive legislatures and executives. The Maryland General Court asserted its judicial supremacy only in dicta, and the court failed to enforce judicial supremacy when it was legally justified. This article picks apart the court's reasoning step by step, using Whittington to illuminate Marbury and Marbury to illuminate Whittington. …

Constitutional Pluralism And Democratic Politics: Reflections On The Interpretive Approach Of Baker V. Carr, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

Baker v. Carr is one of the Supreme Court's most important opinions, not least because its advent signaled the constitutionalization of democracy. Unfortunately, as is typical of the Court's numerous forays into democratic politics, the decision is not accompanied by an apparent vision of the relationship among democratic practice, constitutional law, and democratic theory. In this Article, Professor Charles revisits Baker and provides several democratic principles that he argues justifies the Court's decision to engage the democratic process. He examines the decision from the perspective of one of its chief contemporary critics, Justice Frankfurter. He sketches an approach, described as …

Public Funds And The Regulation Of Judicial Campaigns, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Recent discussions of judicial election campaigns have been marked by two themes: (i) the growing costs of such campaigns, with concerns over the roles of large contributions and independent spending, the burden of fundraising for candidates, and the implications of campaign finance practices for judicial decision-making; and (ii) the changing nature of campaigning, as elections that were once “low-key affairs, conducted with civility and dignity,” have become increasingly politicized, marked by heated charges and sharp criticisms of the records and decisions of sitting judges. The two developments are surely intertwined, with the more bitter and hard-fought campaigns funded by rapidly …

Specialized Trial Courts: Concentrating Expertise On Fact, Arti K. Rai

Faculty Scholarship

In the absence of a specialized patent trial court with expertise in fact-finding, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit often reviews de novo the many factual questions that pervade patent law. De novo review of fact by an appellate court is problematic. In the area of patent law, as in other areas of law, there are sound institutional justifications for the conventional division of labor that gives trial courts primary responsibility for questions of law. This Article identifies the problems created by de novo appellate review of fact and argues for the creation of a specialized trial court …

Giants In A World Of Pygmies? Testing The Superstar Hypothesis With Judicial Opinions In Casebooks, Mitu Gulati, Veronica Sanchez

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A "Freshman" Takes Charge: Judge John J. Parker Of The United States Court Of Appeals, 1925-1930, Peter G. Fish

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Piercing The Veil: William J. Brennan's Account Of Regents Of The University Of California V. Bakke, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Designated Diffidence: District Court Judges On The Courts Of Appeals Papers Of General Interest, James J. Brudney, Corey Distlear

Faculty Scholarship

Since 1980, District CourtJudges, designated pursuant to federal statute, have helped decide over 75,000 court of appeals cases-nearly one of every five merits decisions. Although scholars and judges have warned that the presence of these visitors on appellate panels may undermine consistency, legitimacy, or collegiality, little empirical evidence exists related to such concerns. Working with an especially complete data set of labor law opinions, the authors found that district court visitors perform in a much more diffident fashion than their appellate colleagues. They contribute notably fewer majority opinions and dissents. In addition, their participations do not reflect their professional or …

The Supreme Court As A Strategic National Policymaker, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Andrew D. Martin

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

William Wirt & The Invention Of The Public Lawyer, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Stalking Secret Law: What Predicts Publication In The United States Courts Of Appeals , Deborah J. Merritt, James J. Brudney

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly four fifths of federal court of appeals opinions are unpublished. For more than 25 years, judges and scholars have debated the wisdom and fairness of this body of "secret" law. The debate over unpublished opinions recently intensified when the Eighth Circuit held that the Constitution requires courts to give these opinions precedential value. Despite continued controversy over unpublished opinions, limited empirical evidence exists on the nature of those opinions. Working with an especially complete dataset of labor law opinions and multivariate statistical methods, we were able to identify the factors that predict publication. Some of those factors, such as …

Comparing Judicial Selection Systems, Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, Olga Shvetsova

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Courts Review Arbitral Awards, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of arbitral awards constitutes a form of risk management. In most countries courts may vacate decisions of perverse arbitrators who have ignored basic procedural fairness, as well as those of alleged arbitrators who have attempted to resolve matters never properly submitted to their jurisdiction. In some countries judges may also correct legal error or monitor an award's consistency with public policy.

Public scrutiny of arbitration is inevitable at the time of award recognition. Judges can hardly ignore the basic fairness of an arbitral proceeding when asked to give an award res judicata effect by seizing assets or staying …

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Hears Oral Argument Via Interactive Teleconferencing Technology, Edward Toussaint

Faculty Scholarship

The Minnesota Court of Appeals is dedicated to providingaffordable access to the appellate process. Access to theappellate process is central to our vision. In order to promote this vision, the Minnesota Court ofAppeals has taken the initiative to implement Interactive VideoTeleconferencing ("IVT"). This essay will discuss the historybehind this decision, the mechanics of its implementation, andthe benefits and challenges of its application to the appellateprocess.

Rational Recreation And The Law: The Transformation Of Popular Urban Leisure In Victorian England , Rachel Vorspan

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Rachel Vorspan investigates the complex role played by the courts in the social and cultural transformation of Victorian England. Through focusing on judicial rulings in the recreational as well as political and industrial contexts she explains how the English judiciary played an important function in "rationalizing" the major institutions and practices of urban leisure

Variations On Some Themes Of A Disporting Gazelle And His Friend: Statutory Interpretation As Seen By Jerome Frank And Felix Frankfurter, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

In 1947, this Review published two lectures on statutory interpretation by Jerome Frank and Felix Frankfurter. Both jurists were concerned with a basic question: How constrained are judges when they interpret legislation? The answers each gives, while similar in some respects, differ strikingly. In arguing that interpretation necessarily involves a creative element, Frank analogizes the role of a judge in interpreting legislation to that of a performer in interpreting a musical composition. Although he argues that judicial creativity is constrained, Frank views statutory interpretation as "a kind of legislation." For Frankfurter, by contrast, in construing a statute, a judge is …

Judicial Auditing, Matthew L. Spitzer, Eric L. Talley

Faculty Scholarship

This paper presents a simple framework for analyzing a hierarchical system of judicial auditing. We concentrate on (what we perceive to be) the two principal reasons that courts and/or legislatures tend to scrutinize the decisions of lower echelon actors: imprecision and ideological bias. In comparing these two reasons, we illustrate how each may yield systematically distinct auditing and reversal behaviors. While auditing for imprecision tends to bring about evenhanded review/reversal, auditing for political bias tends to be contingent on the first mover's chosen action. Examples of these tendencies can be found in a number of legal applications, including administrative law, …

The Chicago Conspiracy Trial: Character And Judicial Discretion, Pnina Lahav

Faculty Scholarship

On October 29, 1969, sometime after two o'clock in the afternoon, following yet another heated exchange with defendant Bobby Seale in a courtroom full of spectators, reporters, and armed guards, Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman turned to a marshal and ordered: "Take that defendant into the room in there and deal with him as he should be dealt with in this circumstance."' Judge Hoffman described the aftermath:

In an attempt to maintain order in the courtroom, the Court thereupon ordered the defendant Seale removed from the courtroom at which time he was forcibly restrained by binding and gagging. The defendant Seale …

Comments On Rooker-Feldman Or Let State Law Be Our Guide, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

I feel privileged to have been asked to be a commentator on the three principal papers in this symposium. These are three excellent papers, and although there has been some valuable commentary on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, there will be no need to go beyond these papers to gain a full appreciation of the doctrine, its applications, and its problems, which run as deep as the problems of any doctrine.

Marshall’S Questions, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discontinuous Tradition Of Sentencing Discretion: Koon's Failure To Recognize The Reshaping Of Judicial Discretion Under The Guidelines, The, Ian Weinstein

Faculty Scholarship

Can a judge exercise discretion and follow the law? Some think it impossible, seeing discretion as the opposite of law. Others have harmonized the two ideas, viewing discretion as the exercise of judgment according to and within the bounds of the law. Those who decry judicial discretion urge legislatures to enact more specific laws and leave less room for the vice of inconsistent results. Those who defend discretion would channel it to achieve the virtue of individualized justice. The tension between individualization and uniformity in the law is often unnecessarily heightened by an inadequate analysis of judicial discretion. The exercise …

Tribute To Justice Stewart G. Pollock, A A Tribute To Justice Stewart G. Pollock, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Stewart Pollock knows how to make a play. On his favorite kind of court - the kind with a net in the middle - he can set up the winning volley with a perfectly placed approach shot. On the court on which he served for the past twenty years, the New Jersey Supreme Court, Justice Pollock proved himself an equally gifted playmaker, earning a reputation as one who could forge consensus through judicial craftsmanship and common sense. Appellate judging is a team sport, though one would hardly know it by looking at recent United States Supreme Court cases, with all …

Judicial Hostility Toward Labor Unions--Applying The Social Background Model To A Celebrated Concern , James J. Brudney, Sara Schiavoni, Deborah J. Merritt

Faculty Scholarship

Brudney, Schiavoni, and Merritt address an important debate dividing lawyers And political scientists: To what extent do extra doctrinal factors such as political party, gender, and professional experience influence judicial decision making? They analyze an area of law, decisions interpreting the National Labor Relations Act, that has long been characterized by assertions of Judicial bias. By including every federal court of appeals decision applying the Act over a seven year period, and controlling for both deference to the administrative agency and differences among issues arising under the Act, the authors are able to identify previously undetected influences on judicial decision …