Judges Commons^™

The Supreme Court’S Chief Justice Of Intellectual Property Law, Bob Gomulkiewicz

Articles

Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most recognizable members of the United States Supreme Court. Many people recall his stormy Senate confirmation hearing and notice his fiery dissenting opinions that call on the Court to reflect the original public meaning of the Constitution. Yet observers have missed one of Justice Thomas’s most significant contributions to the Court—his intellectual property law jurisprudence. Justice Thomas has authored more majority opinions in intellectual property cases than any other Justice in the Roberts Court era and now ranks as the most prolific author of patent law opinions in the history of the Supreme …

This Is Your Captain Speaking, Please Remain Physically Restrained While The Robbery Is In Progress, Conner J. Purcell

Touro Law Review

This note analyzes the current circuit split over the application of the “Physical Restraint” sentence enhancement as applied to the crime of robbery. In the first camp, the circuit courts apply a broad or constructive meaning of physical restraint: allowing words or demands with the use of a firearm to trigger the enhancement. In many cases, the courts focus on the victim’s reaction to the perpetrator rather than the perpetrator’s actual conduct, suggesting psychological restraint rather than physical restraint. In the second camp, the circuit courts apply a plain meaning interpretation of physical restraint. These cases routinely find that the …

Judicial Minimalism In Lower Courts, Thomas P. Schmidt

Faculty Scholarship

Debate about the virtues and vices of “judicial minimalism” is evergreen. But as is often the case in public law, that debate so far has centered on the Supreme Court. Minimalism arose and has been defended as a theory about how Justices should judge. This Article considers judicial minimalism as an approach for lower courts, which have become conspicuous and powerful actors on the public law scene. It begins by offering a framework that disentangles the three basic meanings of the term “judicial minimalism”: decisional minimalism, which counsels judges to decide cases on narrow and shallow grounds; prudential minimalism, which …

The Institutional Mismatch Of State Civil Courts, Colleen F. Shanahan, Jessica K. Steinberg, Alyx Mark, Anna E. Carpenter

Faculty Scholarship

State civil courts are central institutions in American democracy. Though designed for dispute resolution, these courts function as emergency rooms for social needs in the face of the failure of the legislative and executive branches to disrupt or mitigate inequality. We reconsider national case data to analyze the presence of social needs in state civil cases. We then use original data from courtroom observation and interviews to theorize how state civil courts grapple with the mismatch between the social needs people bring to these courts and their institutional design. This institutional mismatch leads to two roles of state civil courts …

Asking Too Much: The Ninth Circuit’S Erroneous Review Of Social Security Disability Determinations, Stephen E. Smith

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Disability determinations made by the Social Security Administration’s administrative law judges are subject to judicial review by Article III courts. By statute, these courts apply the “substantial evidence” standard of review on appeal from the agency. The substantial evidence standard is a forgiving one that defers to the findings of the agency. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has modified this standard. It now reviews certain categories of SSA findings not only for substantial evidence, but for support by “clear and convincing reasons.” This heightened standard of review is facially at odds with the statutorily mandated substantial evidence standard. …

Belmore V. Petterutti, 253 A.3d 864 (R.I. 2021), Whitney A. Saunders

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Changemakers: Master Of Studies In Law: 'Law Isn't A Foreign Language Anymore', Roger Williams University School O Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Corporate Capital & Legal Personality: A Marxist Account Of Citizens United Ten Years Later, Hayden E. Pendergrass

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article presents a Marxist critique of the Citizens United decision, arguing that it embodies the dominant capitalist ideology by granting corporations extensive First Amendment rights. This decision reflects the legal system's role in reinforcing corporate power and control over the political process, aligning with Marxist theories of law as a tool of class domination.

How Biden Could Keep Filling The Federal Circuit Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In October 2020, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speculated that the fifty-four talented, extremely conservative, and exceptionally young, appellate court judges whom then-President Donald Trump and two relatively similar Grand Old Party (GOP) Senate majorities appointed had left the federal appeals courts “out of whack.” Problematic were the many deleterious ways in which Trump and both of the upper chamber majorities in the 115th and 116th Senate undermined the courts of appeals, which are the courts of last resort for practically all lawsuits, because the United States Supreme Court hears so few appeals. The nomination and confirmation processes which Trump …

Judge Theodore Mcmillian: Beacon Of Hope And Champion For Justice, Karen L. Tokarz

Scholarship@WashULaw

“Judge Theodore McMillian: Beacon of Hope and Champion for Justice” illuminates the heroic groundbreaking accomplishments of Judge McMillian, who was a trailblazer in Missouri courts. Judge McMillian was Missouri’s first Black judge to sit on the state circuit court, state appellate court, and federal appellate court. Professor Tokarz traces Judge McMillian’s early life and career to demonstrate his life-long dedication to challenging disparities in the community and in the legal system. She discusses the Judge’s role on the St. Louis City Circuit Court, especially the Juvenile Court where he pushed for the expansion of constitutional rights for juveniles; his groundbreaking …

Judging Without A J.D., Sara Sternberg Greene, Kristen M. Renberg

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most basic assumptions of our legal system is that when two parties face off in court, the case will be adjudicated before a judge who is trained in the law. This Essay begins by showing that, empirically, the assumption that most judges have legal training does not hold true for many low-level state courts. Using data we compiled from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, we find that thirty-two states allow at least some low-level state court judges to adjudicate without a law degree, and seventeen states do not require judges who adjudicate eviction cases …

Overstepping: U.S. Immigration Judges And The Power To Develop The Record, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In 1952, Congress established a new federal position to be filled by “special inquiry officers” charged with overseeing deportation cases. These immigration judges—as they eventually came to be called—were assigned to work within the executive branch, namely, the Department of Justice, and they were to be answerable ultimately to a political appointee, the attorney general. Importantly, they received specific statutory authority allowing them to “develop the record” during an immigration case. This power enabled immigration judges to assemble evidence and call, “interrogate, examine, and cross‑examine . . . any witnesses.”

Given that many immigrants who appear in immigration court do …

Constitutional Law: Article Iii And The Political-Question Doctrine, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Health Law: Vaccine Mandates And Religion, Dorit Reiss

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Immigration Law: The Political (Mis)Representation Of Immigrants In The Census, Ming Hsu Chen

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

International Law: A Roadmap For Foreign Official Immunity In U.S. Courts, Chimène I. Keitner

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. M'Intosh: Christianity, Genocide, And The Dispossession Of Indigenous Peoples, Cynthia J. Boshell

Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects

Using hermeneutical methodology, this paper examines some of the legal fictions that form the foundation of Federal Indian Law. The text of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1823 Johnson v. M’Intosh opinion is evaluated through the lens of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to determine the extent to which the Supreme Court incorporated genocidal principles into United States common law. The genealogy of M’Intosh is examined to identify influences that are not fully apparent on the face of the case. International jurisprudential interpretations of the legal definition of genocide are summarized and used as …

Table Of Contents

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Daniel Bress The Honorable

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction After Ford, Scott Dodson

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Environmental Law: Law, Land Use, And Groundwater Recharge, Dave Owen

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Evidence: A Brief Guide To Differential Etiology, David L. Faigman

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Health Law: The Devil In The Tiers, Robin Feldman

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Tort Litigation: Brave New World: Technology And Tort Practice, Richard Marcus

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Why Judges Can't Save Democracy, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

In The Specter of Dictatorship,¹ David Driesen has written a learned, lively book about the dangers of autocracy, weaving together incisive observations about democratic backsliding in other countries with a piercing critique of American teetering on the brink of executive authoritarianism at home. Driesen draws deeply and faithfully on the extant literature on comparative constitutionalism and democracy studies. He also builds on the work of scholars of the American political system who have documented the largely one-way transfer of power over foreign affairs to the executive branch. Driesen's thesis has a slight originalist cast, holding that "the Founders aimed …

Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Like Congress and other deliberative bodies, the Supreme Court decides its cases by majority vote. If at least five of the nine Justices come to an agreement, their view prevails. But why is that the case? Majority voting for the Court is not spelled out in the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rules.

Nor it is obvious that the Court should decide by a majority vote. When the public votes on a ballot measure, it typically makes sense to follow the majority. The general will of the electorate ought to govern. But judicial decisions are not supposed to …

Constitutional Law: Congress’S Power Over Military Offices, Zachary S. Price

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Environmental Law: Rivers With Rights, David Takacs

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

International Law: Prosecuting Foreign States, Chimène I. Keitner

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.