Judges Commons^™

Intellectual Humility By Design: How Courts Earn Legitimacy And Improve Decisions, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

Courts decide disputes as one branch of our government. Their authority depends not only on getting the outcome right but also on public acceptance of their authority. In a time when confidence in institutions is under pressure, courts cannot assume that legitimacy will take care of itself. They must earn it—case by case—through both the substance of what they decide and the way they exercise authority in public view.

A large body of procedural-justice research explains one side of that equation. People are more willing to accept court decisions, even unfavorable ones, when the process communicates voice, neutrality, respect, and …

Aggregation And The “Universal” Injunction, Portia Pedro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay, we begin with a brief summary of the CASA decision’s holding regarding the availability of “universal” injunctions. Part II discusses the relationship between remedies and judicial review and the important role that such injunctions play in that regard. Part III explores how class actions could serve as an alternative path for federal courts, after engaging in judicial review, to make their decisions meaningful by requiring officials to comply with the law and to cease illegal actions or policies. We also respond to several objections to the use of class actions in this context. The final Part addresses …

The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons In Judicial Self-Protection, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority and thus its capacity to sustain the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century …

Against The Single-Subject Rule For The Citizen Initiative, Jonathan L. Marshfield

UF Law Faculty Publications

The citizen initiative allows voters to bypass state legislatures and propose laws for a statewide referendum. It exists in twenty-four states but has national significance because initiatives drive reform on contested issues. Recently, courts have begun to clamp down on the initiative. One significant trend is the strict enforcement of the single-subject rule to strike initiatives when they are considered too broad. Although courts are notoriously inconsistent with the rule, they assert two reasons for aggressive enforcement. First, they claim the rule’s historic purpose is to prevent any form of “logrolling”—including any imaginable aggregation of public-regarding voting blocs. Second, courts …

Court-Stripping, Court-Packing, And Court Defying: Revisiting The Supreme Court’S Essential Functions, Curtis A. Bradley, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

The "essential functions thesis" is one of the most famous structural arguments in the field of federal courts. The thesis, which has been endorsed by a number of prominent scholars and the executive branch, posits that there are implicit, structural limits on Congress's authority to "strip" the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction. Court-stripping, the thesis contends, is not allowed if it would undermine the essential functions of the Court-in particular, maintaining the supremacy and uniformity of federal law. In this Article, we revisit that thesis with three goals in mind. First, we aim to show that the structural arguments …

Law School News: Rwu Names Richard "Dick" Sullivan '79 And Judge Lara E. Montecalvo As 2026 Honorary Degree Recipients 4-16-2026, Kelly Brinza

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Law School News: Isiah Dipina L'27: From Personal Experience To Policy Change 3-26-2026, Jane Govednik

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Law School News: From Textbooks To Truth: A Civil Rights Journey 3-23-2026, Naomi Zhang

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The plain language of Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR) Rule 3(d) requires a district court judge to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments rather than a short trial judge, and public policy requires adjudication of any proposed NRCP 59 motions.

2026 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Contest Winners Announced At Rwu Law Women In Law Leadership Lecture 3-4-2026, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Sanctioned Judge Speaks: A Conversation With Icc Judge Kimberly Prost, Kimberly Prost, David Collins

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

2026 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Essay/Art Contest, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

The Brave New World Of Judicial Election, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election heralded the arrival of a new generation of judicial races in which state supreme courts are becoming war-torn forums for the resolution of deeply divisive policy questions that the federal courts and the other branches of government are unwilling or unable to address. It is a development that portends to be of unprecedented intensity, relative to the fractious “new politics of judicial elections” of the recent past and poses new challenges for legal theory and the existing judicial elections literature to explain. It adds new urgency to an increasingly stark choice: fight for the …

The Untold Story Of 150 Years Of Women In State Judiciaries, Elizabeth D. Katz

UF Law Faculty Publications

A focus on the U.S. Constitution and federal judges has obscured a longer and more complex history of women serving on state benches — and how state constitutions mattered in their rise.

Reflections On Judicial Supervision Of Prosecutorial Powers, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The courts occasionally claim that the limits to the power to prosecute are different from the limits to other executive powers. They say that prosecutorial decisions are subject to judicial review on a reduced set of grounds compared to other executive decisions. I have previously argued that this approach is wrong, and aim to elaborate on the argument in this blog post. The focus will be on the laws of the UK and of Singapore, but it is hoped that the reflections here will be of some use in other common-law jurisdictions as well.

The Bankruptcy Judge And The Generalist Tradition, Alexander Gouzoules

Faculty Publications

The prevailing academic consensus is that bankruptcy judges are specialists presiding over specialized courts. This Article contends that this description is incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate. Drawing on scholarly models of judicial specialization and historical surveys of the field, this Article contends that bankruptcy judges reflect a hybrid design choice: procedural specialization combined with substantive generalism. This model delivers many of the observed benefits of judicial specialization (including efficiency and technical competence) while preserving the cross-pollination of ideas and other benefits associated with the generalist tradition of American judging.

This Article also reflects on contemporary developments—most notably the rise …

Mexico’S Judicial Elections And The Politics Of Reform, Amanda Driscoll, Michael J. Nelson, Julio Ríos-Figueroa

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

A History Of Vacatur, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Vacatur, a seemingly routine appellate tool, has evolved into one of the Supreme Court’s most potent instruments for declaring law. This Article offers the first comprehensive historical account of vacatur, tracing its roots from English and early American practice through its twentieth-century transformations to its contemporary uses. Historically, courts used vacatur to manage dockets, correct procedural irregularities, or enforce reversals on the merits. Modern usage has departed markedly from these roots. The Court now frequently employs vacatur to declare binding legal rules without issuing judgments, effectively circumventing traditional limits on judicial power. Taking seriously the Court’s own insistence on history …

Symmetry, Presumptions, And The Judges Design, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

An instrumental variables approach called ‘the judges design’ used frequently in social sciences relies on an assumption called ‘average monotonicity’. This assumption pertains to how different judges’ (or other classifiers’) decision making processes relate to each other. Violations of it are hard to detect, which raises the importance of it being supported by a plausible theory. Decisions of judges who solve Bayesian decision problems violate average monotonicity as long as the signals they process are symmetric and they do not possess strong presumptions. This result is extended to cases where judge presumptions are symmetrically distributed and may include strong presumptions. …

Legalistic Noncompliance, Daniel Deacon, Leah Litman

Articles

Will the executive branch comply with court orders? That question has garnered a considerable amount of attention over the first few months of the second Trump administration. But what does it mean to comply? And what if a form of noncompliance is already occurring?

This Article documents an emerging practice that has dominated the second Trump administration's approach to unfavorable court rulings, a practice this Article calls legalistic noncompliance. Legalistic noncompliance occurs when the administration uses the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not. Drawing …

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 …

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Creation And The Republican Revival, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Gordon Wood's classic book Creation of the American Republic has long influenced legal thought and originalist scholarship in particular. It played a central role in the Republican Revival movement, an effort by leading scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Frank Michelman to recover a progressive originalism at the same time as conservative originalism was starting to shape constitutional jurisprudence. But, while the Republican Revival nominally relied on Wood, it misread central elements of his book - his concept of virtue and his belief that republicanism had largely been displaced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

The time …

Rethinking Courtroom Presence In The Virtual Era, Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Technological innovation has made virtual appearances by criminal defendants increasingly common. These appearances have advanced efficiency but also raised questions about the scope of both the right and the duty of defendants to be physically present in court. Should judges, for example, be allowed to hold virtual arraignments, even if a defendant wishes to appear in person? Can defendants opt for virtual appearances at will? While courts are beginning to address these questions, they have yet to develop a coherent framework to evaluate when virtual appearances are constitutional and appropriate. This Article seeks to contribute to this project by examining …

Court Review: Journal Of The American Judges Association, Vol. 62, No. 1, Eve M. Brank, David J. Dreyer, Reba Ann Page, Ana Cienfuegos-Silvera

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

Contents

Creating “Buy-in” for Juvenile Restorative Justice Programs: Lessons from Nebraska’s Community Mediation Centers, Kristen M. Blankley, Lisa M. PytlikZillig, and Ashley M. Votruba

Consensus and Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law and Procedure Cases from the Supreme Court’s 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus and Elena Schultz

In the Shadow of Trauma: Opportunities and Obstacles of Restorative Justice with Young People Who Offend, William R. Wood

Restorative Transitional Justice: The Judicial Role in Colombia’s Peace Tribunal, Gabriel Rojas-Andrade

Editor’s Note: Restorative Justoce: Repairing Harm, Rebuilding Community, Eve Brank

Thoughts from Canada: Restorative Justice Through Prohibition on Arrest, Wayne K. Gorman …

Immigration Adjudication, Judicial Review, And The Uneven Incorporation Of Administrative Law Norms, John Harland Giammatteo

Journal Articles

This article examines the interaction between immigration law and administrative law. Scholars and courts regularly treat immigration as outside of, or exceptional to, the normal operation of administrative law and its norms of judicial review. Yet in the past decade, the Roberts Court has radically reshaped administrative law. This broader administrative law project has largely emphasized the primacy of the federal courts and judicial review, enlarging the putative rights of regulated parties, at the cost of agency power. Within that project, immigration adjudication is a frequent conversation partner. Immigration adjudication is used to undermine the administrative state’s claim to policymaking …

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

Should Judicial Opinions Be Read Like Statutes?, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

Should judicial opinions be interpreted with an eye to their purpose, context, or the intent of their authors, or should interpreters focus on the ordinary meaning of the text? Opinions present the same sorts of interpretive puzzles as other legal texts, and yet they have been omitted from the debates over interpretive methodology that dominate the fields of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The omission is no accident: the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly—and with increasing frequency in recent years—that judicial opinions are not to be read like statutes. Yet neither courts nor commentators have explained why the principles that ground …