Courts Commons^™

Courts, Constitutionalism, And State Capacity: A Preliminary Inquiry, Madhav Khosla, Mark Tushnet

Faculty Scholarship

Modern constitutional theory deals almost exclusively with the mechanisms for controlling the exercise of public power. In particular, the focus of constitutional scholars lies in explaining and justifying how courts can effectively keep the exercise of public power within bounds. But there is little point in worrying about the excesses of government power when the government lacks the capacity to get things done in the first place. In this Article, we examine relations between the courts, constitutionalism, and state capacity other than through limiting state power. Through a series of case studies, we suggest how courts confront the problem of …

International Law: Corpus Linguistics And Ordinary Meaning, Eric Talbot Jensen, James Lee Rex

Faculty Scholarship

The application of corpus linguistics to clarify ambiguity or provide insight in legal interpretation is quickly gaining recognition within the United States, especially among the judiciary. However, very little has been done to assess its application to international law, particularly as a means of assisting international courts and tribunals. In the international legal system—where ambiguity inevitably arises from the great diversity of linguistic and cultural systems throughout the world—the norm for understanding contested terms within a treaty or agreement is to look for the “ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in …

Recognizing A Fundamental Right To A Clean Environment: Why The Juliana Court Got It Wrong And How To Address The Issue Moving Forward, Robert Kemper

FIU Law Review

As the existential threat of climate change becomes increasingly prevalent, U.S. plaintiffs, lawyers, and activists have begun seeking redress in federal courts arguing for recognition of a constitutional right to a clean environment. Recently, in Juliana v. United States, the Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized the grave threat of climate change for the health, well-being, and security of the American people and the nation as a whole. Additionally, the court found that the U.S. government has contributed to climate change through both inaction and policy decisions that promote the use of fossil fuels. The plaintiffs claimed that they had a constitutional …

Critical Review Of The Use Of The Rorschach In European Courts, Igor Areh, Fanny Verkampt, Alfred Allan

Research outputs 2014 to 2021

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert’s report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community’s standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case …

The Institutional Mismatch Of State Civil Courts, Colleen F. Shanahan, Jessica K. Steinberg, Alyx Mark, Anna E. Carpenter

Faculty Scholarship

State civil courts are central institutions in American democracy. Though designed for dispute resolution, these courts function as emergency rooms for social needs in the face of the failure of the legislative and executive branches to disrupt or mitigate inequality. We reconsider national case data to analyze the presence of social needs in state civil cases. We then use original data from courtroom observation and interviews to theorize how state civil courts grapple with the mismatch between the social needs people bring to these courts and their institutional design. This institutional mismatch leads to two roles of state civil courts …

The Field Of State Civil Courts, Anna E. Carpenter, Alyx Mark, Colleen F. Shanahan, Jessica K. Steinberg

Faculty Scholarship

This symposium Issue of the Columbia Law Review marks a moment of convergence and opportunity for an emerging field of legal scholarship focused on America’s state civil trial courts. Historically, legal scholarship has treated state civil courts as, at best, a mere footnote in conversations about civil law and procedure, federalism, and judicial behavior. But the status quo is shifting. As this Issue demonstrates, legal scholars are examining our most common civil courts as sites for understanding law, legal institutions, and how people experience civil justice. This engagement is essential for inquiries into how courts shape and respond to social …

Judicial Consensus: Why The Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Like Congress and other deliberative bodies, the Supreme Court decides its cases by majority vote. If at least five of the nine Justices come to an agreement, their view prevails. But why is that the case? Majority voting for the Court is not spelled out in the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rules.

Nor it is obvious that the Court should decide by a majority vote. When the public votes on a ballot measure, it typically makes sense to follow the majority. The general will of the electorate ought to govern. But judicial decisions are not supposed to …

What Did Those Sixteen Justices Say?, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

Everyone is finally noticing that the current Supreme Court is changing its jurisprudence on religious freedom. The commentators are finally paying more attention to the fact that seven of the Court's current Justices were raised Catholic. What role have Catholics played in the Supreme Court's history? This article traces their contributions on religious freedom and civil rights, starting with Chief Justice Taney and ending with Justice Barrett.

How Biden Could Keep Filling The Federal Circuit Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In October 2020, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speculated that the fifty-four talented, extremely conservative, and exceptionally young, appellate court judges whom then-President Donald Trump and two relatively similar Grand Old Party (GOP) Senate majorities appointed had left the federal appeals courts “out of whack.” Problematic were the many deleterious ways in which Trump and both of the upper chamber majorities in the 115th and 116th Senate undermined the courts of appeals, which are the courts of last resort for practically all lawsuits, because the United States Supreme Court hears so few appeals. The nomination and confirmation processes which Trump …

House Rules: Congress And The Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in Trump v. Mazars establishing four factors for determining the validity of congressional subpoenas for a sitting president’s personal papers. In an unanticipated move, Chief Justice John Roberts added that recipients of congressional subpoenas have “long been understood” to retain not only constitutional privileges, but common law privileges developed by judges, including the attorney-client privilege. This was particularly surprising since Trump was not relying on the attorney-client privilege and the Court had never treated this common law privilege as overriding Congress’s Article I power to set its own procedures for conducting …

The Democratic (Il)Legitimacy Of Assembly-Line Litigation, Jessica Steinberg, Colleen Shanahan, Anna Carpenter, Alyx Mark

Faculty Articles

In response to Daniel Wilf-Townsend’s Assembly-Line Plaintiffs we take a panoramic picture of state civil courts, and debt cases in particular, and name specific features of the courts that must be taken into account in crafting reform prescriptions. In doing so, we question both the democratic legitimacy of debt collection courts and the adequacy of incremental reform that targets the structure of litigation. Part I contributes two critical components to Wilf-Townsend’s rich description of consumer debt cases: pervasive intersectional inequality among pro se defendants and a record of fraud among top filers. We add a sharper focus on the racial, …

The Million-Dollar Diversity Docket, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

What would happen if Congress raised the jurisdictional amount in the diversity jurisdiction statute? Given that it has been almost 25 years since the last increase, we are probably overdue for another one. But to what amount? And with what effect? What would happen if Congress raised the jurisdictional amount from the current $75,000 to $250,000 or, say, $1 million? Using a novel hand-coded data set of pleadings in 2900 cases, we show that the jurisdictional amount is not a neutral throttle. Instead, different areas of law, different parts of the country, and different litigants are more affected by changes …

Mapping The Civil Justice Gap In Federal Court, Roger Michalski, Andrew Hammond

Faculty Articles

Unrepresented litigants make up a sizable and normatively important chunk of civil litigation in the federal courts. Despite their importance, we still know little about who these pro se litigants are. Debates about pro se litigation take place without sufficient empirical information. To help fill some of the gaps in our understanding of pro se litigants, this Article takes a new approach by mapping where pro se litigants live. Using a massive data set of 2.5 million federal dockets from a ten-year period, we obtained addresses of non-prisoner pro se litigants. We then geolocated these addresses and cross-referenced that information …

The Jury Veto, Stephen E. Henderson

Faculty Articles

While the American civic religion is to be distrustful of government, feelings of discontent regarding our systems of criminal investigation and adjudication feel historic. And while those systems are capable of great carnage en route, the endgame is, ultimately, criminal punishment. Yet before punishment can be imposed, every prosecution—and therefore every defendant—is meant to encounter a potential “circuit breaker”: the jury. I propose that we re-inject this democratic voice into our criminal adjudications, but through an entirely novel structure: the defendant (and perhaps the prosecutor) would have the choice of invoking a jury empowered to ‘veto’ any judicial sentence. By …

Free-Ing Criminal Justice, I. Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Aging, Health, Equity, And The Law: Foreword, Joan C. Foley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aba Model Rule 8.4(G), Discriminatory Speech, And The First Amendment, Bruce A. Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin

Scholarly Works

As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise and left us with an inability to formally prepare our legal system to incorporate these advances, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyber law cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence …

The Long Shadow Of United States V. Rosenberg: A Biographical Perspective On The Hon. Irving Robert Kaufman, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Baby, We Were Born This Way: The Case For Making Sexual Orientation A Suspect Classification Under The Equal Protection Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Jennifer R. Covais

Touro Law Review

Currently, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides minimal constitutional safeguards against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Laws that treat queer Americans differently than their straight counterparts are presumptively constitutional if those laws bear a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest. Consequently, states may limit same-goods and services of certain businesses, and qualify for government programs. The Supreme Court established enhanced equal protection guarantees for classifications based on race, ethnicity, and national origin which are deemed suspect classifications. These classifications will only survive judicial review if the government proves the law is necessary …