Judges Commons^™

Federal Judicial Misconduct: The Need For Higher Standards On Lower Courts, Nino C. Monea

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Georgia's Best Friend, Harold D. Melton

Mercer Law Review

“Chief Justice Michael Boggs is one of my very best friends in life,” say people all over the great State of Georgia, including me. Rare is the man who has such a clear sense of purpose and who derives so much joy in being a true friend to the people around him. And by that, I refer to his tight-knit inner circle and the broader community at large: his wife, his immediate family, his extended family, his local community, his legal community, and also the people who make Georgia their home.

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

A Conversation With Judge Stephanos Bibas, Stephanos Bibas, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

On Friday, March 28th, 2025, the Catholic University Law Review hosted its annual spring symposium: Traditional Judicial Power & Doctrinal Development, which included a conversation between Judge Stephanos Bibas and Professor Kevin C. Walsh. The conversation covered topics such as standing, severability, and preliminary injunctions. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered.

Lost In Translation: How The Criminal Justice System Fails Individuals With Autism, J.Mckenna Harris

Master of Arts in Human Services

Adults with autism spectrum disorder face significant challenges throughout the criminal justice system, from initial police contact through incarceration. This capstone examined how the core features of autism, literal language processing, difficulty reading social cues, sensory sensitivities, and executive function deficits, create vulnerabilities that legal professionals frequently misunderstand. The literature review revealed a consistent pattern: behaviors rooted in autism are routinely misinterpreted as signs of guilt, defiance, or lack of remorse. During interrogations, individuals with autism are highly susceptible to false confessions because they struggle with abstract legal language, tend to comply with authority figures, and cannot predict the consequences …

Rekonstruksi Mekanisme Seleksi Hakim Konstitusi Di Indonesia, Indah Sri Pangestu, Dwi Yuliani, Hertaty Dorothy Dewi Siburian

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

The mechanism for selection and election of constitutional judges in Indonesia currently still shows a diversity of procedures in each proposing institution, namely the Supreme Court, DPR and President. The process implemented does not fully reflect the principles of transparency, participation, objectivity and accountability as mandated in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the procedures for selection and selection of constitutional judges to ensure a more professional system and integrity. One of the solutions offered is the establishment of an independent institution responsible for the selection and recruitment of constitutional judges with a system …

Gender And Consensus On The Courts, Kaleigh A. Ruiz

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

During group deliberation, women tend to be the harbingers of compromise, vying for consensus on even the most contentious topics. However, women cannot succeed in this endeavor if gender bias prevents their voices from being heard. In federal courts, collaboration is essential to reaching the simple majority needed to resolve a case. While the courts already function under norms of collegiality during deliberations, the practice of writing a separate opinion to acknowledge disagreement with a majority opinion remains relatively common. In this Article, I test two competing theories as to the effects of women judges on consensus. On one hand, …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

Equality In Sentencing Mitigation, John B. Meixner Jr.

Fordham Law Review

As guilty-plea rates have skyrocketed, sentencing has become an increasingly important part of criminal procedure. With judges often wielding significant discretion at sentencing, a key question is how judges interpret mitigation: evidence about the defendant’s background or the case that supports a reduced sentence. Past empirical research—both experimental and in real-world cases—indicates that mitigation plays an important role in determining sentences. But does mitigation help everyone, or does it reinforce inequalities that frequently infect other areas of criminal procedure? Do low-income Black defendants with appointed counsel benefit from sentencing mitigation as much as wealthier White defendants with private attorneys? Do …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Auer Deference: He Who Writes The Law Must Not Adjudge Its Violation, William G. Kennedy

MC Law Review

This Comment explores Auer deference and its application to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission, and its commentary. Auer deference, in its simplest form, requires courts to give controlling weight to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Following the Court’s decision in Kisor—expressly limiting Auer’s application, the circuit courts have disagreed on the applicability of Auer to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary regarding career offender designation. This disagreement begs for an appearance before the Court of Last Resort, but until that day, the courts must rigidly apply Kisor to …

The Mississippi Court Of Appeals 30th Anniversary Commemoration And Panel Discussion, Donna M. Barnes

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

Judge Platt Potter: Politics And Principle In Interbranch Conflict, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

During the previous Congress, some commentators called on the Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats and chaired by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, to demand the testimony of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over allegations of ethical breaches, securing their presence by subpoena if necessary. The Committee did not subpoena the Justices, with Durbin citing the likely lack of sufficient votes and worrying that the Senate would not be able to enforce the subpoenas anyway. During the same Congress, Durbin asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify about judicial ethics, an invitation that Roberts declined.

These incidents …

Judicial Ethics, The Supreme Court, And The Rule Of Law, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Essay begins with a short history of judicial ethics regulation in the United States, ending with the adoption of codes of conduct by every state and federal judicial system except the Supreme Court of the United States. It then turns to a series of ethics controversies encircling the Supreme Court and its justices, which culminated in the Supreme Court adopting a Code of Conduct in 2023. Tapping into the social science literature, it argues that for codes to improve the ethical climate of an institution they must encourage psychological ownership of and “buy-in” to a code by those subject …

What's Appealing In Mississippi?, Virginia C. Carlton

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Exceptions To Otherwise Valid Laws: A Doctrinal And Meta-Doctrinal Perspective, Richard H. Fallon Jr.

Northwestern University Law Review

When do the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses require exceptions to generally valid laws? Recently, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of such exceptions, which excuse some speakers and religiously motivated actors from legal duties that apply to others, including in prominent cases under antidiscrimination statutes and emergency pandemic regulations. By contrast, other landmark cases––such as United States v. O’Brien and Employment Division v. Smith—insist that First Amendment exceptions should be rare.

In analyzing the fraught and confusing issues that surround First Amendment exceptions, this Article makes four main contributions. First, it conceptualizes claims to …

Preventive Transparency In Third-Party Litigation Funding, Seth Katsuya Endo

Northwestern University Law Review

For years, efforts to comprehensively regulate third-party litigation funding have been unsuccessful. But bills requiring mandatory disclosure are being introduced in Congress, and the Advisory Committee for Civil Rules has finally agreed to take up the issue. By grounding the discussion of third-party litigation funding in both the broader civil procedure and professional responsibility scholarship, this Article identifies an easy, uncontroversial reform to preventively address the categorical concerns raised by the practice. The primary contribution is a doctrinal intervention, identifying how legal ethics are an integral part of federal civil procedure and then drawing out the implications for third-party litigation …

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

The Search Of A Search: Moderating Reverse Internet Keyword Warrants, Tui Rademaker

Northwestern University Law Review

Statistics show that Americans consistently turn to Google and other search engines to answer their most personal and private concerns, yet a new investigative tool risks law enforcement having vast discretion in the access of this data. With a keyword warrant, law enforcement can request from a search engine provider (usually Google) a list of probative search queries that users made over a specified time period. Such warrants are beginning to face legal challenges, and so far, courts seem reluctant to recognize the constitutional implications—instead leaving law enforcement with greater potential discretion over their use.

This Note assesses the constitutionality …

Fighting Death: A Critique Of Kentucky's Death Penalty System, Pamela R. Goodwine

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fact-Finders' Dialectic: Beyond Rationalist Optimism And Realist Pessimism, Michael Head

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Investigating The Relationship Between Noun Classes And Plant Folk Taxonomy In Chasu Language Of Kilimanjaro Region In Tanzania, Peter Rabson Mziray

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

The current study investigates the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu (G 22). The study focuses on two objectives: the first objective is to describe the plant folk taxonomy in Chasu and the second objective is to determine the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu. Data were collected from rural villages in Same and Mwanga districts by using free listing, field interviews (jungle-walk-and-identify), and written texts containing Chasu plant names. The findings reveal that Chasu folk taxonomy reflects different ethnobotanical categories; including a unique beginner which is mmea/mimea ‘plant(s)’, and three life …

Is Judicial Independence Safe?, Richard Haigh

Conference Papers

No abstract provided.

Does The Law Ever Run Out?, Charles F. Capps

Notre Dame Law Review

Although laypeople commonly believe that a judge’s job is to decide every case as the law requires, a broad consensus exists among legal scholars that the law not infrequently “runs out,” leaving the judge to decide the case on extralegal grounds. This Article subjects that consensus to critical scrutiny. Tentatively, the Article concludes that none of the alleged sources of indeterminacy in the law—including permissive rules, balancing tests, vagueness, ambiguity, silence, contradictions, and uncertainty—actually causes the law to run out. More confidently, the Article maintains that the extent to which the law runs out, if it does at all, depends …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

Living Property, Joseph William Singer

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court has increasingly defined property rights that are per se exempt from regulation in the absence of compensation, most recently in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023). The Court claims that it can identify property rights that are categorically protected from regulation by reference to history, tradition, and precedent. Yet this approach is oddly ahistorical; it is inconsistent with the fact that property law changed dramatically over U.S. history, as well as varying tremendously among the states. It is also inconsistent with the historical context of the Founding era. At that time, …