Jurisprudence Commons^™

Maximinimalism, Jamal Greene

Cardozo Law Review

The article explores Chief Justice John Roberts' judicial approach, characterizing it as "maximinimalism"—a blend of narrow decision-making with deep, impactful reasoning. While Roberts is often seen as a minimalist for his emphasis on deciding cases narrowly, his rulings in significant cases like Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, and NFIB v. Sebelius reveal a deeper, more substantive approach that challenges the law, thus embodying maximalist tendencies. This duality allows the Court to influence the law profoundly while maintaining judicial restraint.

The Court Of Appeals As The Middle Child, Raymond Lohier

Fordham Law Review

It’s said that middle children are most likely to be forgotten in the chaos of family life. The same could be said of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, which in 2016, mark their 125th anniversary, and which are the middle child of the federal judicial family. As too few people, even academics, know, the courts of appeals were created in 1891 by the Evarts Act, more than a century after the Constitution and the First Judiciary Act. The history of the courts of appeals has accordingly hovered somewhat uneasily next to that of the U.S. Supreme Court and the district …

In Memoriam: Justice Antonin Scalia And The Constitution's Golden Thread, L. Margaret Harker

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Infrequently Asked Questions, Edward T. Swaine

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

If appellate advocates could hear from courts about topics that might be raised during oral argument—as opposed to relying solely on their ability to anticipate the issues—might their answers be better? That seems likely, but it is unlikely that research could confirm that, as judicial practice overwhelmingly favors impromptu questioning. Spontaneity may be harmless if the question was predictable, or unavoidable if a judge just thought of the question. But sometimes advocates have to answer challenging questions concerning the law, facts, or implications of a position—questions that help decide the case, either due to the quality of the answer or …

The Distinctive Role Of Justice Samuel Alito: From A Politics Of Restoration To A Politics Of Dissent, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Samuel Alito is regarded by both his champions and his critics as the most consistently conservative member of the current Supreme Court. Both groups seem to agree that he has become the most important conservative voice on the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has a Court to lead; Justice Antonin Scalia and his particular brand of originalism have passed on; Justice Clarence Thomas is a stricter originalist and so writes opinions that other Justices do not join; and Justice Anthony Kennedy can be ideologically unreliable. Justice Alito, by contrast, is unburdened by the perceived responsibilities of being Chief Justice, …

New Judicial Review In Old Europe, Alyssa S. King

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Scrivener’S Error, Ryan D. Doerfler

Northwestern University Law Review

It is widely accepted that courts may correct legislative drafting mistakes, i.e., so-called scrivener’s errors, if and only if such mistakes are “absolutely clear.” The rationale is that if a court were to recognize a less clear error, it might be “rewriting” the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.

This Article argues that the standard is much too strict. The current rationale ignores that courts can “rewrite,” i.e., misinterpret, a statute both by recognizing an error and by failing to do so. Accordingly, because the current doctrine is designed to protect against one type of mistake (false positives) but …

The Judge As Umpire: Ten Principles, Brett M. Kavanaugh

Catholic University Law Review

In his speech, Judge Kavanaugh discusses the notion of Judges as umpires and sets forth ten principles that are vital for an impartial judiciary dedicated to the rule of law in our separation of powers system. According to Judge Kavanaugh, Judges cannot act as partisans, must follow establish rules and principles, and must strive for consistency, not only in terms of respecting precedent, but from day to day, in how they decide cases, confront issues, interpret statutes and interpret the Constitution.

Judges must also understand that their role is to apply the rules rather than remake the rules according to …

Equality Writ Large, Phyllis Goldfarb

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Thin Rationality Review, Jacob Gersen, Adrian Vermeule

Michigan Law Review

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts review and set aside agency action that is “arbitrary [and] capricious.” In a common formulation of rationality review, courts must either take a “hard look” at the rationality of agency decisionmaking, or at least ensure that agencies themselves have taken a hard look. We will propose a much less demanding and intrusive interpretation of rationality review—a thin version. Under a robust range of conditions, rational agencies have good reason to decide in a manner that is inaccurate, nonrational, or arbitrary. Although this claim is seemingly paradoxical or internally inconsistent, it simply rests on an …

Using Feminist Theory To Advance Equal Justice Under Law, Linda L. Berger, Bridget J. Crawford, Kathryn M. Stanchi

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Toward A Feminist Political Theory Of Judging: Neither The Nightmare Nor The Noble Dream, Sally J. Kenney

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Ministering (In)Justice: The Supreme Court's Misreliance On Abortion Regret In Gonzales V. Carhart, J. Shoshanna Ehrlich

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Dilemma O’Callahan V. Parker Presents To Sofa’S, Ernest V. Harris

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Some Structural Dilemmas Of World Organization, C. Wilfred Jenks

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Teaching Of International Law, Ian Brownlie

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Place Of Policy In International Law, D. H. N. Johnson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Place Of Policy In International Law, Oscar Schachter

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sua Sponte Actions In The Appellate Courts: The "Gorilla Rule" Revisited, Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Aaron S. Lichter

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Dismantling Democracy: Common Sense And The Contract Jurisprudence Of Frank Easterbrook, Deborah Post

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Scalia And The Rule Of Law: Originalism Vs. The Living Constitution, Richard F. Duncan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death in February, 2016, was a great loss for his family, a great loss for his friends, and a great loss for the "Written Constitution" of the United States of America. We will have no more of his brilliant, witty, and pugnacious judicial opinions. Instead, we will have to settle for the body of work he left behind as his legacy. But, as one commentator has said, his opinions are "so consistent, so powerful, and so penetrating in their devotion to the rule of law"—the real rule of law, not the political decrees of judges creating …

Judicial Externship Clinic, Legal Clinic Program

Clinical Programs Brochures

The Judicial Externship allows each student to observe, evaluate and participate in the practice of various areas of the law outside the classroom. The educational benefits derived from this experience include improving legal analytical, research and writing skills; learning how judicial decisions are made; and becoming familiar with various court procedures. Students gain a unique view of the court system by assisting a state or federal judge. Students observe and perform a range of lawyering tasks within the judicial system, including: research; writing; attending settlement conferences; observing trials; reviewing jury instructions; preparing bench briefs; and other assignments unique to judicial …

Enhancing Justice Administration In Nigeria Through Information And Communications Technology, 32 J. Marshall J. Info. Tech. & Privacy L. 89 (2016), Halima Doma

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

The end of the twentieth century brought about the system of In-formation Communication Technologies (“ICT”) which represents the start of a new era. Communication is faster and more efficient than ever before. As a result, the world is brought closer together. Our means of communication and social interactions have changed dramatically. Due to the technological communication advances, we are no longer tied to our desks to make phone calls or have to travel thousands of miles for meetings. ICT enables us to contact friends, family and business colleagues at the touch of a button whatever the time, wherever the place. …

Judging The Social Sciences In Carter V Canada (Ag), Jodi Lazare

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This paper examines a recent example of evidence-based decision making affecting social policy at the trial court level. It offers a close reading of Carter v Canada (AG), decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court, and of Justice Lynn Smith's careful scrutiny of the social science evidence when invalidating the Criminal Code prohibition on assistance in dying. Drawing on literature which examines the legal system's use of social science evidence and expert witnesses, this paper suggests that Justice Smith's treatment of the evidence in Carter provides an example of skilled judicial treatment of the extensive amounts of social science evidence …