Judges Commons^™

Are Judges Influenced By Dollar Amounts? Evidence From Tax Law, Jonathan Farrar, Thomas Farrar, Harjot Mehmi

Dalhousie Law Journal

We investigate whether idiosyncratic features of numbers in dollar amounts unconsciously bias judges. If so, appellants’ likelihood of success could depend on the dollar amount under dispute. Specifically, we examine the following: whether the first digit in a dollar amount follows the frequency distribution predicted by Benford’s Law, and, accordingly, whether the likelihood of appellants’ success varies with the first digit of their disputed dollar amount; round number bias, which is the psychological tendency to prefer round numbers (ending in 0) over other numbers; and even-odd number bias, which is the psychological tendency to ascribe different characteristics to even numbers …

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 …

Useful Noise: Understanding Dicta And Knowing What To Do With It, Len Niehoff, Tucker Gribble

Articles

Sometimes we approach the idea of obiter dictum as if it were Latin for “Here the court says something I wish it didn’t.” When a judicial opinion includes a statement that hurts our case, we labor to cast it as dicta and we give it the first name “mere.” If the opposing party quotes the statement, we huff about its irrelevance and dismissively proclaim that it can, indeed must, be ignored. We treat dicta as background noise, and we encourage the court to plug its ears and hum.

The Judicial Voice On The Courts Of Appeals, Allison Orr Larsen, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

The judicial voice on an appellate court typically speaks in the collective, so when a judge chooses to go solo—either in a dissent or a concurrence—that act deserves a close look. Separate opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court are common because the Justices have strong incentives to articulate a distinctive personal jurisprudence. But lower court judges have always been more reluctant to write separately, and for good reason. The institutional design and longstanding practices of the U.S. courts of appeals are very different from the Supreme Court: Lower appellate court judges are bound by precedent in a different way, rarely …

Standard Textualism, James A. Macleod

Michigan Law Review

For as long as legal scholars have been writing about the rules-versus-standards distinction, textualism has been understood to produce characteristically rule-like law. This Article argues for the opposite view. Far from generating the “law of rules” that Scalia famously envisioned, the rule of modern textualism produces a law of standards—much more so than anybody, proponent of textualism or critic, appears to have recognized.

Two aspects of today’s textualism produce this result. The first is its emphasis on ordinary language and communication. Modern textualism typically produces standards because ordinary language and communication are typically standard-like. The second is modern textualism’s drive …

Beyond Bathrooms: The Far-Reaching Consequences Of Denying Gender Identity In Adams V. School Board Of St. Johns County, Jeffrey Sun, Regina Umpstead Pratel

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: The transgender community continues to face discrimination in United States society, and legal protections are unlikely to change anytime soon. Understanding the broader context of these challenges helps explain why some instances of discrimination in public schools may be overlooked or even supported by public officials. An examination of recent judicial rulings concerning transgender students’ access to restrooms corresponding with their gender identity—situated within the broader convergence of national legal and social developments—provides critical insight into the structural barriers faced by transgender students within the educational system and transgender individuals in society at large. Significantly, the growing visibility of …

Forum Selling As A Threat To The Rule Of Law, Brian Iverson

FIU Law Review

Forum shopping has long been a feature of federal litigation, but recent years have brought a more troubling dynamic in which federal courts compete for cases by “forum selling.” Judges engage in forum selling by adopting plaintiff-friendly procedures, reliably issuing plaintiff-leaning decisions, and publicly soliciting certain types of cases. These practices transform localized procedural discretion into a structural risk for the federal judicial system.

This Article makes two novel contributions to the federal forum-selling literature. First, it expands the discussion beyond bankruptcy and patent practice to examine ideological influences. Drawing on empirical scholarship and illustrative judicial profiles, the Article identifies …

Standard Textualism, James A. Macleod

Articles

For as long as legal scholars have been writing about the rules-versus-standards distinction, textualism has been understood to produce characteristically rule-like law. This Article argues for the opposite view. Far from generating the “law of rules” that Scalia famously envisioned, the rule of modern textualism produces a law of standards—much more so than anybody, proponent of textualism or critic, appears to have recognized.

Two aspects of today’s textualism produce this result. The first is its emphasis on ordinary language and communication. Modern textualism typically produces standards because ordinary language and communication are typically standard-like. The second is modern textualism’s drive …

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 …