Judges Commons^™

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.

Law And Identifiability, Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir, Ilana Ritov, Tehila Kogut

Indiana Law Journal

Psychological studies have shown that people react either more generously or more punitively toward identified individuals than toward unidentified ones. This phenomenon, named the identifiability effect, has received little attention in the legal literature, despite its importance for the law. As a prime example, while legislators typically craft rules that would apply to unidentified people, judges ordinarily deal with identified individuals. The identifiability effect suggests that the outcomes of these two forms of lawmaking may differ, even when they pertain to similar facts and situations.

This Article is a preliminary investigation into the relevance of the identifiability effect for law …

Of Great Use And Interest: Constitutional Governance And Judicial Power- The History Of The California Supreme Court, Donald Warner

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Narratives Of Self-Government In Making The Case, Benjamin L. Berger

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court’S Countermajoritarianism? What Impact Does Public Opinion Have On The Supreme Court Decisions?, Evan Tompkins

Political Science Theses and Capstones

Although normative questions about the role of the Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution have been commonly debated in political science research, an updated empirical question on Mishler and Sheehan’s (1993), study on public opinion and its impact on the Court must be asked. It has been 25 years since the publication of their study and numerous high profile cases such as Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, and Obergefell v. Hodges have brought nationwide attention to the Supreme Court and how it interacts with public opinion. Results from empirical measurements of the Supreme Court’s decisions and what impact …

Benchslaps, Joseph P. Mastrosimone

Utah Law Review

The practice of judges issuing so-called benchslaps is growing both in popularity and concern. Such published decisions and orders seek to publicly shame lawyers for their alleged unethical or unprofessional lawyering. Legal blogs have picked up on this trend, celebrating and elevating benchslaps to become a part of legal popular culture. However, the practice of using embarrassing and belittling published decisions to punish or to deter unethical or professional conduct raises serious concerns that the issuing judge is violating his or her own ethical duties.

This Article criticizes the practice and concludes that it must end based on three arguments: …

Linnaean Taxonomy And Globalized Law, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Review of The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities by Stephen Breyer.

The New Front In The Clean Air Wars: Fossil-Fuel Influence Over State Attorneys General- And How It Might Be Checked, Eli Savit

Michigan Law Review

Review of Struggling for Air: Power and the "War On Coal" by Richard L. Revesz and Jack Leinke, and Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America by Paul Nolette.

Justice Scalia And The Idea Of Judicial Restraint, John F. Manning

Michigan Law Review

Review of A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Antonin Scalia .

Before Interpretation, Anya Bernstein

Journal Articles

What a statutory interpretation opinion interprets may seem given. It is not: this article shows how judges select what text to interpret. That text may seem to carry with it one of a limited range of contexts. It does not: this article shows how judges draw on a variety of factors to situate the texts they interpret in unique, case-specific contexts. Selecting and situating form the infrastructure of interpretation. Their creativity and choice provide the basis on which assertions of determinate meaning are made. That process reveals how contestation and indeterminacy permeate legal interpretation even as judicial opinions seek to …

It’S Time For An Intervention!: Resolving The Conflict Between Rule 24(A)(2) And Article Iii Standing, Gregory R. Manring

Fordham Law Review

This Note argues that federal courts should employ an approach that is more related to maintaining the benefits of Rule 24 without running afoul of Article III—a task the yes-or-no approach is ill equipped to handle. Ultimately, an approach that is based on employing a standing analysis only where the Case or Controversy Clause is implicated anew allows the greatest access to the intervention device without running the risk of entertaining nonjusticiable disputes.

Foreword: The Books Of Justices, Linda Greenhouse

Michigan Law Review

For this Michigan Law Review issue devoted to recently published books about law, I thought it would be interesting to see what books made an appearance in the past year’s work of the Supreme Court. I catalogued every citation to every book in those forty opinions in order to see what patterns emerged: what books the justices cited, which justices cited which books, and what use they made of the citations. To begin with, I should define what I mean by “books". For the purposes of this Foreword, I excluded some types of reading matter that may have a book-like …

The Tragedy Of Justice Scalia, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

Review of A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Antonin Scalia .

The Extraordinary Judicial Rebukes Of Trump's Travel Ban, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "President Trump's two executive orders suspending travel to the United States by refugees and foreign nationals from several Muslim-majority countries have been put on hold by a number of lower court federal judges.

Whatever might be said about the merits of these rulings, and regardless of whether they will be upheld in future appeals, they are extraordinary judicial rebukes of a sitting president."

The Crushing Of A Dream: Daca, Dapa And The Politics Of Immigration Law Under President Obama, Robert H. Wood

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: 24: Dean Style 3-6-2017, Michael Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Exceptional Role Of Courts In The Constitutional Order, N.W. Barber, Adrian Vermeule

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article looks at a rare part of the judicial role: those exceptional cases when the judge is called upon to pass judgment on the constitution itself. This arises in three groups of cases, roughly speaking. First, in exceptional cases the validity of the constitution and the legal order is thrown into dispute. Second, on some occasions the judge is asked to rule on the transition from one constitutional order to another. Third, there are some cases in which the health of the constitutional order requires the judge to act not merely beyond the law, as it were, but actually …

Aggregation As Disempowerment: Red Flags In Class Action Settlements, Howard M. Erichson

Notre Dame Law Review

Class action critics and proponents cling to the conventional wisdom that class actions empower claimants. Critics complain that class actions over-empower claimants and put defendants at a disadvantage, while proponents defend class actions as essential to consumer protection and rights enforcement. This Article explores how class action settlements sometimes do the opposite. Aggregation empowers claimants’ lawyers by consolidating power in the lawyers’ hands. Consolidation of power allows defendants to strike deals that benefit themselves and claimants’ lawyers while disadvantaging claimants. This Article considers the phenomenon of aggregation as disempowerment by looking at specific settlement features that benefit plaintiffs’ counsel and …

Justice And Other Crimes Evidence: The Smorgasbord Ploy, Kenneth Graham

Fordham Law Review

The smorgasbord ploy probably plays only a minor role in the admission of other crimes evidence. But it offers us a nice window into the uses and abuses of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“the Rules”) and its state clones. Rule 404(b)’s drafters may have supposed that trial judges would look among the illustrative uses in Rule 404(b) and select the one or two that seem most apropos to the case before them. However, the practitioners of smorgasbordism do not make any choices but instead list all (or most) of the illustrative uses to support the admission …

Rethinking Criminal Contempt In The Bankruptcy Courts, John A. E. Pottow, Jason S. Levin

Law & Economics Working Papers

A surprising number of courts believe that bankruptcy judges lack authority to impose criminal contempt sanctions. We attempt to rectify this misunderstanding with a march through the historical treatment of contempt-like powers in bankruptcy, the painful statutory history of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (including the exciting history of likely repealed 28 U.S.C. § 1481), and the various apposite rules of procedure. (Fans of the All Writs Act will delight in its inclusion.) But the principal service we offer to the bankruptcy community is dismantling the ubiquitous and persistent belief that there is some form of constitutional infirmity with "mere" bankruptcy …

The Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture: A Conversation With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg And Professor Aaron Saiger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Aaron Saiger

Fordham Law Review

PROFESSOR AARON SAIGER: It’s a signal honor for Fordham Law School and a personal honor for me and a pleasure to have Justice Ginsburg here tonight. We want to thank you for coming. I think I will not reiterate all of the thanks Dean Diller has offered, except to say that we are very grateful to the Levine family and deeply indebted to the students of the Law Review who have made tonight happen. The format of the evening is as follows: I will ask questions and the Justice will answer them.

The Impact Of Justice Scalia's Replacement On Gender Equality Issues, Wilson R. Huhn

ConLawNOW

The last forty-six years may be accurately described as the era of the modern Republican Supreme Court. As a result of presidential elections, Republican presidents have nominated all ten of the Justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court between 1969 and 1991. Republicans have thus controlled the Court since 1970. During this period the right to gender equality was recognized and the right to marriage equality was realized. However, also during this period many Republican Justices staunchly opposed gender equality, and far more remains to be accomplished.

Since Justice Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court has been deadlocked on a …

Judge Gorsuch On Empathy And Institutional Design, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

American College Of Trial Lawyers Report And Recommendation On Disruption Of The Judicial Process

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Jury As A Political Institution, Jon M. Van Dyke

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Partnership Of Bench And Bar, Edward D. Re

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Paul Vi To American Jurists

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

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.

The Vanishing Common Law Judge, Neal Devins, David Klein

Faculty Publications

The common law style of judging appears to be on its way out. Trial courts rarely shape legal policymaking by asserting decisional autonomy through distinguishing, limiting, or criticizing higher court precedent. In an earlier study, we demonstrated the reluctance of lower court judges to assert decisional autonomy by invoking the holding–dicta dichotomy. In this Article, we make use of original empirical research to study the level of deference U.S. district court judges exhibit toward higher courts and whether the level of deference has changed over time. Our analysis of citation behavior over an eighty-year period reveals a dramatic shift in …