Judges Commons^™

Cover, Table Of Contents & Masthead, Kateri Son

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Legal Summaries Of Administrative Law Cases, Kimberly M. Papadantonakis

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Ghost Guns: A Case Study On The Tension Between Public Exigencies And Statutory Construction, Bradley Krause

Catholic University Law Review

Administrative agencies often navigate public policy issues while simultaneously handling complex and highly technical matters. When facing a public emergency, how should courts interpret these agencies’ authorizing statutes? What rules of thumb exist to guide the courts? This Comment answers these questions through a case study on ongoing litigation pertaining to a recent ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) regulation. The regulation, targeted towards ghost guns (also known as “privately manufactured firearms”), seeks to incorporate these weapons within pre-existing definitions in the ATF’s authorizing statute, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). In spite of challenges to the regulation, …

A Conversation With Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Brett M. Kavanaugh, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

On Thursday, September 26th, 2024, the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at The Catholic University of America hosted a conversation between Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Professor J. Joel Alicea. This was the inaugural event of the new Center. The conversation covered topics such as constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, religious liberty, and the Catholic intellectual tradition. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered. The video of the event may be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKvSwzkmqo.

All’S “Fair” In Love & Copyright: Copyright’S Incentivization Of Fiction Through The Second Fair Use Factor & Idea/Expression Dichotomy, Peyton J. Smetana

Catholic University Law Review

Copyright Law is supposed to encourage authors to create works of authorship, both factual and fictional. However, Copyright jurisprudence has developed to only protect expression, and not idea, to ensure the continued dissemination of knowledge. In solidifying this belief, two doctrines—Fair Use and the idea/expression dichotomy—allow for individuals to utilize other works of authorship without it being considered copyright infringement. Though widely used throughout the judicial system, the analysis for both the second Fair Use factor—Nature of the Copyrighted Work—and the idea/expression dichotomy are left without clear guidelines, leaving judges with an insurmountable task of determining what is and is …

The Search For Unenumerated Fundamental Rights, Alina Sluzhyvenkova

Student Theses and Dissertations

There are certain rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, e.g., right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to a speedy and public trial. There are also rights that aren’t specifically written out but are nevertheless enjoyed by people nationwide. Rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but which are fundamental to are called the unenumerated rights. Unenumerated rights are just as important and can be derived from natural law, enumerated rights, the Ninth Amendment, precedents, judicial opinions, and substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a principle guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which …

Judge Edward T. Gignoux — A Personal Appreciation, Frank M. Coffin

Maine Law Review

Most occasions for encomia about judges occur when the subject has departed the scene of his accomplishments. Happily, the subject of this issue of the Maine Law Review is still with us and likely to be so for a long time. He also happens to measure up precisely to the overused word "paragon." I use it in the original Latin sense of "whetstone," something to sharpen against or to compare oneself with. My thesis is that Judge Gignoux gives observers of any age, but particularly the young, an inspiring role model. This volume is felicitously dedicated. The ever-present problem is …

The Lost History Of Judicial Restraint, Derek A. Webb

Notre Dame Law Review

For over 125 years, jurists and scholars who have championed judicial restraint have looked back to James Bradley Thayer’s 1893 Harvard Law Review article, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, as the seminal authority for the rule that courts should presume the constitutionality of a challenged law and only invalidate it if its unconstitutionality is “clear” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But Thayer presented those three rules (presumption of constitutionality, clear error rule, and reasonable doubt standard) as rooted in historical legal practice in America. And yet none of his twentieth or twenty-first century …

In Conversation With Petr Angyalossy, Chief Justice Of The Czech Republic, Petr Angyalossy, David Collins

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

Plausibly Illiberal: Sua Sponte Dismissals Of Pro Se Complaints Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pierce Edlich

Fordham Law Review

Over a quarter of civil litigants file suit in federal court without an attorney. Most unrepresented litigants are in prison, and many of their cases raise complex, delicate constitutional questions. The number of unrepresented litigants in federal courts rose steadily until the 1990s, when Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995 to limit the burden of frivolous inmate litigation on federal courts. Since 1996, the PLRA has defined courts’ procedural obligations for inmate and in forma pauperis (IFP) suits, often filed pro se. The PLRA requires that courts screen and dismiss sua sponte cases that are frivolous, …

Redressing Judicial Misbehavior: An Integrated Approach To Judicial Immunity, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

Immunities generate intense public interest and controversy. Whether it is the sweeping presidential immunity that former President Trump has claimed or the qualified immunity that rogue police invoke to evade financial responsibility for their brutality, immunities stand as a highly contested aspect of the American legal system. Judicial immunity incites similar controversy. American judges possess absolute immunity from civil suits for their judicial acts, so victims are barred from seeking civil compensation, even against judges who engage in purposeful or malicious misconduct from the bench. For decades scholars have sought to curtail absolute judicial immunity, but they have overlooked a …

Roger Williams University 2024 President's Report: A Message From President Miaoulis, Roger Williams University

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

2024 Esther Clark Moot Court Competition 10-28-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

Join Us For A Conversation With Judge Matthew Solomson: Building A Legal Career, Rising To The Bench, And Defending American Values, Cardozo Federalist Society, Matthew H. Solomson

2024–2025 Flyers

No abstract provided.

A Fundamental Failing: The Mississippi Judiciary's Abrogation Of Its Constitutional Duty, Brad Robertson

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Northwestern University Law Review

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using “explicit,” “clear,” and “unambiguous” statements—or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using “legally magic” words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do …

Accommodating Incompetency In Immigration Court, Elizabeth Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

In criminal law, an individual must be deemed competent to stand trial, yet our immigration courts routinely order the deportation of incompetent noncitizens. A removal proceeding against a noncitizen—where an outcome of deportation often risks life-threatening harm—continues apace even if the noncitizen has been deemed incompetent by the immigration judge. In place of halting proceedings, the immigration judge imposes “safeguards” pursuant to a provision of the immigration code that neither defines nor explains the term. In practice, judges’ application of the term “safeguards” is often absurd. The implications of continuing a proceeding against a noncitizen with a disability affecting competency …

Law School News: Exploring Law From Classroom To Courtroom 11-08-2024, Andrew Clark

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Judicial Leadership In Family Court: A Cautionary Tale, Jane M. Spinak

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Law, Fact, And Appellate Review, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

For centuries, courts have been called upon to distinguish between law and fact. That distinction played a key role in recent Supreme Court decisions on two critical components of appellate review. Dupree v. Younger considered an important question regarding what a party must do at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review. And Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. addressed how to select and apply the standard of appellate review--specifically, whether and how the appellate court must show deference to particular decisions made at the trial level.
Both decisions were partially right. Dupree correctly focused on whether certain early …

The Role Of Accountability In Preserving Judicial Independence: Examining The Ethical Infrastructure Of The Federal Judicial Workplace, Susan Saab Fortney

Faculty Scholarship

After news reports of sexual harassment allegations involving federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to assemble a working group to address concerns related to misconduct in the federal judicial workplace. Following the working group’s report, the judiciary adopted recommendations relating to discrimination and harassment in the federal judiciary. Using the ethical infrastructure framework, this article reviews what changes have been made and what is missing. It explains how the steps taken largely focus on formal aspects of communicating and monitoring standards of conduct. Notably missing are …

Rwu Law Alumni Newsletter November 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

Women In Robes October 28, 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

A Statistical Look At The Supreme Court's 2009 Term, John M. Schleb Ii, Colin Glennon, Hemant Sharma

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

Whether a change in membership occurs or not, every Supreme Court term presents a unique set of controversies and decisions for legal scholars to examine. Herein, we offer a discussion of the Court's recently completed 2009-2010 term. Rather than analyzing specific opinions in detail (as many have already done), we generate a comprehensive statistical analysis of justice voting behavior for the term. In particular, we examine consensus and division on the Court, the ideological tenor of the term, voting alignments among the justices, the production of opinions, and the Court's overall ideological spectrum based on individual voting patterns. Ultimately, we …

Panel Discussion 4: Best Practices In Representing Children In Court, Timothy Irwin, Carlton Lewis, Dwight Stokes

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit To Hold Oral Argument At The Maurer School Of Law, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—one of 13 appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary—will hear oral argument at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law on Thursday, October 24.

The arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Law School’s DeLaney Moot Court Room. The proceedings are open to the public, with seating available on a first-come, first-served basis starting at 9 a.m. An overflow room will be available if needed. The arguments are expected to conclude by 12:30 p.m.

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has a …

Book Review: John Paul Stevens, The Making Of A Justice: Reflections On My First 94 Years, New York, Little, Brown And Co., 2019, Pp. 549, $35.00 (Hardback), Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The autobiography of Justice John Paul Stevens, published just a few months before he died, is an enticing travelogue for Supreme Court nerds. Other travelers may want to pick a different landscape.

Popularity Contest: Is An Independent Judiciary Compatible With Popular Constitutionalism?, Lulu S. Faulk

Indiana Law Journal

Can the theory of popular constitutionalism—where the people have authority to shape constitutional law—exist alongside judicial independence? On the surface, these two ideas seem like contestants in a popularity contest: Popular constitutionalism embraces the will of the people in defining constitutional law, while judicial independence insists that judges disregard any and all external pressure in an effort to uphold the tenets of the Constitution even when they are unpopular. The contrast of these competing ideas is all the more evident with recent Supreme Court decisions such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, demonstrating a deviation from majority opinion in …

Contempt: The Original Judicial Cheat Code, Ryan L. Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The judicial contempt power challenges the fundamental rights enshrined in America’s Constitution. Imagine spending eight years in federal prison with no right to a jury trial or a court appointed attorney. Your only reprieve is the discretion of the judge who is imprisoning you. Meaningful appeals and even habeas corpus actions are generally not available remedies. Instead, what was originally justified as an inherent power of the court, necessary to maintain order and decorum, is increasingly used for trivial offenses or to incarcerate individuals for far longer than their possible crimes would otherwise warrant.

Despite widespread instances of abuse of …