Jurisprudence Commons^™

Perreault V. Parker: Findings Tainted By Error, Gisele M. Nadeau

Maine Law Review

An appellate court does not disturb a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and, therefore, usually confines its review to an assessment of a trial court's legal conclusions based on those findings of fact. The method used by a trial court in making factual findings, however, involves the application of legal principles. If a trial court fails properly to apply these legal principles in arriving at its findings of fact, these findings may be tainted by the error. This is so, for instance, when a trial court's findings of fact have been "manifestly influenced or controlled" …

Utah V. Strieff And Teaching Analysis, Lisa A. Tucker

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment required suppression of evidence obtained in an unlawful investigatory stop when police discovered that the person stopped was subject to lawful arrest based on an unrelated outstanding warrant. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that suppression was not required in such a case; the dissent by Justice Sotomayor argued that it should be.

These two legal opinions took jarringly different approaches to determining a question of law, one that disproportionately impacts people of color, who are statistically most likely to be unlawfully stopped …

Interactional Ordering: Reconstructing Lon Fuller's Theory Of Private Law, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

While Lon Fuller is best remembered for his contributions to the fields of general jurisprudence and contract law, his work in each has long been seen as unrelated to the other. This Article shows that in a significantly underappreciated body of work, Fuller did connect the two and, in the process, developed the outlines of a robust theory of private law, best characterized as “interactional ordering.” Driven by Fuller’s efforts to develop a jurisprudence of form that was derived from conventionalism and natural law thinking, interactional ordering sees all normativity as originating in horizontal interactions between individuals in society, seeking …

New Legal Realism At 20: Rethinking Law In An Era Of Populism And Social Movements, Jeffrey Omari, Pablo Rueda-Saiz, Richard Ashby Wilson

Articles

This Article critically examines the New Legal Realism (NLR) movement on its twentieth anniversary and illuminates its distinctive intellectual contributions. In evaluating NLR's unique methodological and substantive contributions, we explore the movement's relationship to other interdisciplinary theories and empirical approaches to law. NLR approaches show a commitment to a comparative, cross-national exploration of legal phenomena while allowing for grounded generalizations about the relationship between law and society. NLR approaches embrace a diverse range of methods and emphasize the importance of "looking up, down, and sideways." Notably, NLR embraces both "top-down" and "bottom-up" methods, providing comprehensive insights into the intricate interactions …

In Praise Of Ignoring Facts, Stephen E. Sachs

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Treating every use of legal rhetoric as equally probative of American law is fatal to the theoretical project—including to [Jack] Balkin’s own “thin” theory of constitutional law, which stretches itself past the breaking point in the hopes of accommodating the changing winds of social movements. Rather than take advocates’ rhetorical moves for granted, we scholars have the indulgence and time to look for the implicit theories underlying these moves, to air those theories explicitly, to identify what might make them true or false, and to assess how plausible they are on those grounds. Constitutional theories need microfoundations: a theory of …

Recovering Constitutional Identity In Colonial South India: Sedition, Sovereignty, And Small-C Constitutionalism In Pudukkottai, Bharath Gururagavendran

National Law School Journal

Constitutional identity is easiest to identify when it has already been credentialed: by a constitutional text, constituent authorisation, or judicial recognition. What remains visible when those markers are absent? Through a historically grounded study of the ‘Little Kingdom’ of Pudukkottai, a princely state in colonial South India, this article examines whether constitutional identity can be recovered from the small-c life of a polity whose opportunities for formal constitution-making were structurally foreclosed. Pudukkottai had no big-C moment. Its constitutional life, if it had one, must be reconstructed from less authoritative materials. The article argues that the absence of a constitutional text …

Two Forms Of Formalism In Contract Law, Gregory Klass

Cardozo Law Review

Formalism in contract interpretation has had many defenders and many critics. What lawmakers need, however, is an account of when formalism works and when it does not. This Article addresses that need by providing a general theory of contract exposition and differentiating between two forms of formalism in contract law. Formalities effect legal change by virtue of their form alone, thereby obviating interpretation. Examples include “as is,” the seal, and sometimes contract boilerplate. Evidentiary formalism, in distinction, limits the evidence that goes into interpretation. Plain meaning rules are an example of evidentiary formalism. This Article provides a detailed analysis of …

The Enduring Relevance Of Congress Despite The Court's Shift To “Ordinary Reader” Statutory Interpretation, Abbe R. Gluck, Laila M. Robbins

Journal of Law and Policy

Has Congress become irrelevant to statutory interpretation? The dominant theoretical and doctrinal paradigm in American statutory interpretation has always been the conversation between Congress and the courts. Today, however, the Court’s new, second-generation textualists claim they have left Congress behind. They argue they have changed textualism’s perspective, from an “insider” perspective focused on Congress’s textual choices, to an “outsider” perspective based on how “ordinary people” read statutes. The Court’s self-professed shift away from a legiscentric approach, if true, would be a seismic shift in the conception of the judicial role. Whereas judges and scholars—including first-generation textualists—had for a century focused …

The Broad Church Of Modern Textualism, Nicole Steitz, Brian G. Slocum, Kevin Tobia

Journal of Law and Policy

Nearly thirty years ago, Justice Scalia’s Tanner lectures branded Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) as the anti-textualist archetype, a decision trumping the text’s plain meaning with a suspect judicial investigation of the law’s purpose or spirit. And so Holy Trinity seemed, until Gales and Solan’s groundbreaking empirical study supported an alternative reading of the key statutory term (“labor or service”) that would avoid this conflict between text and purpose. Taking inspiration from Gales and Solan, we reconsider Holy Trinity using the precepts of modern textualism, with its increased emphasis on context, pragmatics, anti-literalism, legal meaning, holistic meaning, non-compositionality, …

The Pet Fish Canon, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Journal of Law and Policy

Inspired by the work of the late Professor Larry Solan, this article proposes that judges recognize as one of the textualist canons of statutory construction a “pet fish” canon. Such a canon would posit that when an ordinary reader would understand two or more words to yield a meaning that is different than the sum of the two words defined separately, the statutory interpreter should not disaggregate them. The Roberts Court has already followed such a linguistic precept in some statutory cases, and this article proposes that the Court recognize this as a canon considered at least as seriously as …

Grammar & Syntax Arguments On The Roberts Court, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Journal of Law and Policy

In his excellent book, The Language of Judges, Professor Solan demonstrates how judges use grammatical or linguistic arguments to avoid acknowledging statutory ambiguity—and how they often get the grammar or linguistics wrong. Since his book was published, textualism has become the dominant interpretive approach on the U.S. Supreme Court—and we have seen increasingly prominent battles involving grammatical devices and rules. This comment takes Professor Solan’s analysis as a jumping off point to evaluate how grammar and linguistic arguments are employed on the modern Supreme Court, in the age of textualism. The comment offers a brief empirical and doctrinal assessment of …

Property Rights Or Obstacles To Progress?: The Fundamental Flaws In Takings Jurisprudence, Liam Higgins

Journal of Law and Policy

New York boasts some of the strongest protections for tenants out of all jurisdictions throughout the country. Chief among these laws is the state Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Among other protections, the RSL has limited excessive rent increases on regulated apartments, granted tenants a right of renewal so that they could remain in their homes, and permitted family members to take over the tenancy of their loved ones upon their passing. The RSL has been amended several times throughout its history, each time providing more or less protections depending on the administration at the time. Recently, in 2019, the New …

Textualism In Practice, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is by now axiomatic to note that textualism has won the statutory interpretation wars. But contrary to what textualists long have promised, the widespread embrace of textualism as an interpretive methodology has not resulted in any real clarity or predictability about the interpretive path—or even the specific interpretive tools—that courts will invoke in a particular case. Part of the reason for this lack of predictability is that textualism-in-practice often differs significantly from the approach that textualism-in-theory advertises; and part of the reason is that textualism-in-theory is sometimes in tension with itself. In light of textualism’s ascendance—and now dominance—on the …

High Theory In Chinese Law, Mark Jia

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The most contested question in the study of Chinese law is also its most enduring one: How should we characterize China’s legal system? In recent years, scholars have advanced numerous theories to explain Chinese law. Some have emphasized legality; others have stressed order; still others have described the system as dual or multi-faceted.

This Essay contributes a set of meta-theoretical insights to these discussions. It argues that the preceding debates would benefit from reflecting on the general qualities that make theories good, with special attention to the analytic costs and benefits of different modes of theorizing. It distinguishes between monist …

The Politics Of Constitutional Dignity Jurisprudence, Daniel Haefke

Brooklyn Law Review

This Article traces the politics of (human) dignity in US constitutional law. It reveals that the notion has undergone a conservative shift, which has resulted from Supreme Court Justices increasingly unleashing dignity’s dormant conservative potential. Legal scholars arguing for prominently including the notion in constitutional jurisprudence reflect the belief that adopting the language of dignity would push the Supreme Court to be more sensitive to progressive political demands. This progressive constitutional dignity optimism is historically plausible yet conceptually misguided. It is historically plausible considering the legacy of constitutional dignity in previous opinions of the Court. As the Article expounds, the …

Brief Of Professors William Araiza, Jeffrey Lubbers, And Peter M. Shane As Amici Curiae In Support Of Defendantappellant Federal Trade Commission, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Amici are law professors who teach and write in the fields of administrative law and statutory interpretation. Amicus William Araiza is the Stanley A. August Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. Amicus Jeffrey Lubbers is Professor of Practice in Administrative Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Amicus Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law. As leading administrative law scholars, amici have a strong interest in the sound development of administrative law in the federal courts, and are submitting this …

What's Love Got To Do With It? Davis V. Henderson And A Proposed Revision To Mississippi's Termination Of Child Support Standard, Maddie Woodhead

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Death By Jury: Jurisprudential Trends And Hybrid Capital Sentencing Authority, Jacob T. Hayes

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 …

Keynote Address: Protecting The Pillars Of Our Legal System, Bernard W. Nussbaum

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Dealing With Excessive Caseloads Without Litigation, Robert Stein, John Terzano, Norman Lefstein, Avis Buchanan, Robert Boruchowitz, Dennis Keefe, James R. Neuhard

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Mutual Recognitions Across Generations, Steven L. Winter Walter S. Gibbs Distinguished Professor Of Constitutional Law

Law Faculty Research Publications

“Sovereignty,” Arendt says, “is contradictory to” the human condition. It is not, in any event, the kind of thing that can be shared across generations. Subsequent generations lack sovereignty to the precise degree that they are bound by the decisions of their predecessors. It is no answer to say that contemporary citizens participate in the sovereignty of a whole, transgenerational people. To paraphrase de Tocqueville, later generations are not free because they are not entirely equal, and they are not equal because they are not entirely free.

Where “sovereignty” is a metaphysical concept that transcends time, recognition is an act …

Separation Of Powers Restrictions On Judicial Rulemaking: A Case Study Of Federal Rule 4, Ralph U. Whitten

Maine Law Review

Debates over the validity of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have historically centered on the "substantive rights" restriction of the Rules Enabling Act of 1934. While Supreme Court decisions from Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. through Hanna v. Plumer and beyond have arguably deprived the restriction of any practical force, scholars have consistently favored a more rigorous interpretation of the directive that federal rules not "abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive rights." Despite the historic impotence of the substantive rights restriction, discussions of the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continue, even today, to center on the substantive …

City Of Portland V. Depaolo: Defining The Role Of Stare Decisis In State Constitutional Decisionmaking, Thad B. Zmistowski

Maine Law Review

Five years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, aligned itself with a growing number of states by adopting the primacy method of state constitutional decisionmaking. Under the primacy method, a state court decides an issue of constitutional law by first looking to that state's own constitution; if the issue is resolvable on state constitutional grounds, the federal constitutional grounds are not reached. Adoption of the primacy method by numerous state courts has generated considerable debate concerning issues of state constitutional law. Little discussion, however, has focused on the methodology of state constitutional adjudication. As a …

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 …

Chilling Victims’ Rights: The Supreme Court Creates A “Pride Of Place” For True Threats, Ana Maria Matovic

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Living in the Information Age means that information is literally always at our fingertips. This also means that keeping tabs on one another is as easy as a tap on a screen. The effortless ability to follow another’s life on the internet has led to a sinister phenomenon: cyberstalking. Prosecuting cyberstalking cases poses complex constitutional challenges. Specifically, prosecuting these cases may clash with a perpetrator’s First Amendment right to free speech. However, the First Amendment does not protect all categories of speech. One of those unprotected categories is the category of “true threats.” If a perpetrator’s conduct constitutes a “true …

Greater Of Two Evils: Trial Penalty Or Plea Penalty?, Breanne Potter

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article critiques the prevalence of plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system, arguing that while it is often seen as a necessary evil for efficiency, it undermines constitutional rights and perpetuates injustice. The author introduces the concept of the "plea penalty," which refers to the significant and often overlooked consequences of accepting a guilty plea, such as the loss of rights and long-term collateral consequences. The article challenges the notion that the trial penalty—harsher sentences for those who go to trial—is the only concern, emphasizing that the plea penalty can be equally detrimental. It advocates for systemic reforms …

Theistic Illiberal Constitutionalism: A Review Of Adrian Vermeule’S Common Good Constitutionalism, Kyron J. Huigens

Articles

Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism drew a remarkable amount of attention from constitutional law scholars when it was published in 2020. About eighteen months later, Vermeule published a piece complaining that the critics had missed the point, that they had ignored the natural law jurisprudence that grounds the work. He was correct. This Review addresses Vermeule’s natural law jurisprudence, emphasizing the fact that it is a religious natural law jurisprudence. His arguments are in the tradition of ScholasticismAristotelian logic incorporated into Christian theology by St. Thomas Aquinas. Scholasticism is a remarkably weak foundation for constitutional jurisprudence. It is a vast …

واجب التسبيب كعنصر من عناصر الحق في الإدارة الجيدة "دراسة تحليلية في القانون الأمريكي والمقارن"

UAEU Law Journal

This study deals with the subject of the duty to reason as an element of good administration, and it analyzes the American experience in the field of duty to reason as the only model that was able to move the concept of reasoning administrative decisions from the proceduralist perspectives to the Rationalism perspectives. The Rationalism perspectives, in turn, is the focus and goal of good administration, which it is mainly focuses on controlling the exercise of the discretionary authority of administration and giving rationality to administrative action.

The study concluded that the American concept of the duty to reason is …