Courts Commons^™

Cannabis Law, Lisa Moran Mcmurdo, Steven D. Forbes, Stewart R. Pollock, Christian F. Tucker

University of Richmond Law Review

On July 1, 2021, Virginia became the sixteenth state to permit recreational use of cannabis. As of 2022, thirty-nine states have legalized the medical use of cannabis, and nineteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the adult use of cannabis for recreational purposes. “A CBS News/YouGov poll released in April 2022 found that two-thirds of Americans want recreational [cannabis] use to be legalized under federal law and in their own state.” This Article summarizes the history of cannabis regulation and examines the current legal landscape in Virginia governing the possession, cultivation, manufacturing, and sale of cannabis.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Christopher S. Dadak

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article discusses Supreme Court of Virginia opinions and revisions to the Code of Virginia and Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia impacting civil procedure here in the Commonwealth over the last year. The Article first addresses opinions of the supreme court, then new legislation enacted during the 2021 General Assembly Session, and finally, approved revisions to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Covid-19 And Energy Justice: Utility Bill Relief In Virginia, Joel B. Eisen

University of Richmond Law Review

Energy justice has captured national attention as scholars have spotlighted inequities in energy production and distribution activities, energy and utility regulation, and the clean energy transition. Within this broader context, this Article reflects on the successes and setbacks for the movement toward energy justice through a case study focusing on legislative, executive, and regulatory attempts between 2020 and 2022 to provide relief for Virginia utility customers harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Article begins by defining the problem of energy insecurity and demonstrating that the pandemic exacerbated existing energy insecurity for vulnerable citizens of Virginia. It then traces the efforts …

Criminal Law And Procedure, Brittany A. Dunn-Pirio, Timothy J. Huffstutter, Mason D. Williams, Robin M. Nagel, Tanner M. Russo

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article surveys recent developments in criminal procedure and law in Virginia. Because of space limitations, the authors have limited their discussion to the most significant published appellate decisions and legislation.

Another Bite At The Apple Or The Same Bite? Characterizing Habeas Petitions On Appeal As Pending Instead Of Fully Adjudicated, Gregory Winder

William & Mary Law Review

[...] One of the Act's [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] most significant aspects is its restriction on the filing of successive habeas corpus petitions. Responding to this restriction, prisoners have attempted to circumvent the AEDPA through a number of different procedural routes with varying degrees of success.

This Note examines the circuit split that has emerged for one of those procedural attempts—motions to amend habeas petitions following adjudication on the merits and while on appeal in a circuit court. This Note argues that allowing amendment of habeas petitions on appeal is both consistent with the history of habeas corpus …

Interpreting State Statutes In Federal Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Article addresses a problem that potentially arises whenever a federal court encounters a state statute. When interpreting the state statute, should the federal court use the state’s methods of statutory interpretation—the state’s canons of construction, its rules about the use of legislative history, and the like—or should the court instead use federal methods of statutory interpretation? The question is interesting as a matter of theory, and it is practically significant because different jurisdictions have somewhat different interpretive approaches. In addressing itself to this problem, the Article makes two contributions. First, it shows, as a normative matter, that federal courts …

2022 Esther Clark Moot Court Competition Finals, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller In Support Of Applicant, Thomas R. Lee, John J. Nielsen, Tyler B. Lindley, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22A337
Senator Lindsey Graham v. Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury

On emergency application for a stay and injunction pending appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The merits of this case are colored by partisan overtones. But the overarching legal questions implicate nonpartisan, institutional concerns. The Speech or Debate Clause has deep historical roots that protect important interests in legislative independence. That independence requires strong protection for legislative inquiry under an objective standard rooted in the facial basis for a particular investigation. If courts intrude on …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Bruderhof, Clear, Muslim Advocates, And The Sikh Coalition In Support Of Appellant, Stephanie Hall Barclay, Francesca Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-2342
Thomas Walker v. John Baldwin

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, Honorable Iain D. Johnston (3:19-cv-50233)

From the Summary of the Argument

The Seventh Circuit should re-examine its precedent to allow for monetary damages for individual capacity suits under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for three reasons. First, RLUIPA’s text follows the same approach as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and should be interpreted to afford the same types of broad remedies. Before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), reduced the …

Brief For Amicus Curiae Professor Derek T. Muller In Support Of Respondents, Daniel M. Sullivan, Daniel M. Horowitz, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 21-1271
Timothy K. Moore v. Rebecca Harper

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina

From the Summary of Argument

The petition for certiorari in this case presents the question whether the phrase “Legislature thereof” in the Elections Clause of the Constitution bars state courts from regulating the contours of Congressional redistricting pursuant to state constitutions. But Congress has spoken, too. It has regulated the manner of drawing congressional districts by federal statute. See 2 U.S.C. § 2c. Congressional redistricting in a State now takes place pursuant to this federal statutory directive, which contemplates a role …

Where There Is A Right, There Is A Remedy—Or Is There?, Grace Panicola

SLU Law Journal Online

Courts have repeatedly declined to allow causes of actions under the Constitution when Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are violated by government officials. In this article, Grace Panicola discusses a pocket of governmental immunity that creates serious implications for Plaintiffs as they ultimately face inadequate remedies.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty, Islam & Religious Freedom Action Team Of The Religious Freedom Institute, And Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic In Support Of Petitioners, John A. Meiser, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 22-238
Charter Day School, Inc. v. Bonnie Peltier

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The Fourth Circuit’s gross misapplication of state-action doctrine contradicts decades of precedent and expands the doctrine beyond its breaking point. If not corrected, that analysis would also endanger many vital public services provided by religious charitable groups and undermine this Court’s recent free-exercise cases in the process.

Demons & Droids: Nonhuman Animals On Trial, Gerrit D. White

PANDION: The Osprey Journal of Research and Ideas

Nonhuman animal trials are ridiculous to the modern sensibilities of the West. The concept of them is in opposition to the idea of nonhuman animals—entities without agency, incapable of guilt by nature of irrationality. This way of viewing nonhuman animals is relatively new to the Western mind. Putting nonhuman animals on trial has only become unacceptable in the past few centuries. Before this shift, nonhuman animal trials existed as methods of communities policing themselves. More than that, these trials were part of legal systems ensuring they provided justice for all. This shift happened because the relationship between Christian authorities and …

Wake Up And Smell The Smog: The Third Circuit Provides Clarity On Cercla's Federally Permitted Release Reporting Exemption In Clean Air Council V. United States Steel Corp., Zachary Lawlor

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Dicamba Is Gone With The Wind: The Ninth Circuit Blows Life Into Fifra In National Family Farm Coalition V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Timothy Howley Keith

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Wishing To Be Part Of That Court: How The Supreme Court's Decision In Bp P.L.C. V. Mayor Of Baltimore Lets Energy Companies Wander Free And Drown The Shore Up Above, Natalie Poirier

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Are Rules Effective Before Publication? Reflections On The D.C. Circuit’S Decision In Humane Society V. Usda, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Since at least 1980, there has been a documented increase in regulatory activity at the end of presidential terms, especially in the post-election period when the outgoing President’s successor is from the other party. This phenomenon has come to be known as “midnight regulation,” and the products of end-of-term legislative rulemaking are referred to as “midnight rules.” While a study I conducted for the Administrative Conference of the United States revealed that most midnight rules are routine,[1] some are not and are designed to project the agenda of the outgoing administration into the future and force the incoming administration …

An Interdisciplinary Legal Study Of The Organisation Of The Courts: The Methodological Consequences Of The Meeting Between Legal And Management Approaches (Penelitian Hukum Interdisipliner Pada Organisasi Peradilan: Pertemuan Pendekatan Hukum Dan Pendekatan Manajemen Serta Konsekuensi Metodologisnya), Dian Rositawati

The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies

This article presents the relationship between legal principles and management principles in the judicial organization and how they affect the judiciary's performance. As an organization, the judiciary is bound by the rule of law principles, especially the principle of judicial independence, as stated in the constitution and laws. However, the courts as an organization are also influenced by management principles, which include viewing public organizations from efficiency, effectiveness, and service quality perspectives. This paper discusses the interaction and tension between these principles in a judicial organization and their methodological consequences. In the discussion about methodology, this paper will elaborate on …

Tribal Sovereignty And Economic Efficiency Versus The Courts, Robert J. Miller

Washington Law Review

American Indian reservations are the poorest parts of the United States, and a higher percentage of Indian families across the country live below the poverty line than any other ethnic or racial sector. Indian nations and Indian peoples also suffer from the highest unemployment rates in the country and have the highest substandard housing rates. The vast majority of the over three hundred Indian reservations and the Alaska Native villages do not have functioning economies. This lack of economic activity starves tribal governments of the tax revenues that governments need to function. In response, Indian nations create and operate business …

Managing Judicial Discretion: Qualified Immunity And Rule 12(B)(6) Motions, Zachary R. Hart

Indiana Law Journal

Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages. Courts applying the doctrine, which is heavily dependent on the facts of the case, must determine whether the government officials’ conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. This inquiry is discretionary as judges must determine if the alleged violation was “clearly established,” a term that the Supreme Court has defined in conflicting ways. Moreover, when federal judges conduct the qualified immunity inquiry at the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage, their decision is …