Only Where Justified: Toward Limits And Explanatory Requirements For Nationwide Injunctions,
2020
Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Only Where Justified: Toward Limits And Explanatory Requirements For Nationwide Injunctions, Milan D. Smith Jr.
Notre Dame Law Review
In Part I of this Article, I discuss the existing law and current debates surrounding nationwide injunctions. I consider the origins of both the apparent recent surge in the issuance of nationwide injunctions and the apparent recent surge in skepticism concerning nationwide injunctions. In Part II, I analyze the potential justification for issuance of a nationwide injunction that I find most compelling, and on which basis I argue a court is well within the bounds of Article III notwithstanding the indirect benefits of such injunction to nonparties. In Part III, I consider three other sometimesasserted justifications that I argue courts …
Toward A More Apparent Approach To Considering The Admission Of Expert Testimony,
2020
Chief United States District Judge, Middle District of North Carolina; Member, United States Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence; Chair of Subcommittee on Rule 702; Senior Lecturer, Duke University School of Law; Member, American Law Institute
Toward A More Apparent Approach To Considering The Admission Of Expert Testimony, Thomas D. Schroeder
Notre Dame Law Review
This Article highlights lingering confusion in the caselaw as to the proper standard for the trial court’s discharge of its gatekeeping role for the admission of expert testimony. The Article urges correction of the faulty application of Daubert’s admonition as to “shaky but admissible” evidence as a substitute for proper discharge of the trial court’s gatekeeper function under Rule 104(a). The Article concludes with several suggestions for trial and appellate courts to consider for better decisionmaking in discharging their duty to apply Rule 104(a)’s preponderance standard to the elements of Rule 702.
Brief Of The Boston University Center For Antiracist Research As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Larry Thompson V. Police Officer Pagiel Clark, Shield #28472; Police Officer Paul Montefusco, Shield #10580; Police Officer Phillip Romano, Shield #6295; Police Officer Gerard Bouwmans, Shield #2102, Respondents,
2020
Boston University School of Law
Brief Of The Boston University Center For Antiracist Research As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Larry Thompson V. Police Officer Pagiel Clark, Shield #28472; Police Officer Paul Montefusco, Shield #10580; Police Officer Phillip Romano, Shield #6295; Police Officer Gerard Bouwmans, Shield #2102, Respondents, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Neda Khoshkhoo, Caitlin Glass
Faculty Scholarship
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research (the “Center”) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit university-based research institution that convenes researchers, scholars, and policy experts across disciplines to find novel and practical ways to understand, explain, and solve seemingly intractable problems of racial injustice and inequity. The Center’s interest in this case arises from its expertise in researching and understanding the harms of policies, practices, and actions that produce and sustain racial inequities, and in advancing antiracist alternatives that promote racial equity.
The Second Circuit’s interpretation of the so-called “favorable termination rule,” which imposes an “indications-of-innocence” standard, is …
Disaggregating Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Doctrine: Four Forms Of Constitutional Ineffectiveness,
2020
University of Michigan Law School
Disaggregating Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Doctrine: Four Forms Of Constitutional Ineffectiveness, Eve Brensike Primus
Articles
For years, experts have blamed Strickland v. Washington’s lax standard for assessing trial attorney effectiveness for many of the criminal justice system’s problems. But the conventional understanding of Strickland as a problem for ineffectiveness claims gives the decision too much prominence because it treats Strickland as the test for all such claims. That is a mistake. Properly understood, the Supreme Court has recognized four different constitutional forms of trial attorney ineffectiveness, and Strickland’s two pronged test applies to only one of the four. If litigants and courts would notice this complexity and relegate Strickland to its proper place, it would …
Revisiting And Confronting The Federal Judiciary Capacity "Crisis": Charting A Path For Federal Judiciary Reform,
2020
University of Missouri
Revisiting And Confronting The Federal Judiciary Capacity "Crisis": Charting A Path For Federal Judiciary Reform, Ryan Vacca, Peter S. Menell
Faculty Publications
The modern federal judiciary was established well over a century ago by the Judiciary Act of 1891. Over the next seventy years, the structure and core functioning of the judiciary largely remained unchanged apart from gradual increases in judicial slots. By the mid- 1960s, jurists, scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers had voiced grave concerns about the capacity of the federal system to function effectively in the face of ever-increasing caseloads.
Heeding calls for reform, in 1972 Congress charged a commission chaired by Senator Roman Hruska to study the functioning of the federal courts and recommend reforms. After extensive study, the Hruska …
Fixing The Problem Of Incompetent Defense Counsel Before The International Criminal Court,
2020
University of Michigan Law School
Fixing The Problem Of Incompetent Defense Counsel Before The International Criminal Court, Matthew Catallo
Michigan Journal of International Law
Throughout the latter half of the twentieth-century, defense counsel arguing before international criminal tribunals provided notoriously ineffective assistance. This note examines whether defense counsel similarly fail to provide competent assistance at the International Criminal Court––and if they do so for similar reasons. In examining the ICC’s procedural and regulatory framework, this note highlights the systemic inequities at the Court that favor the prosecution and devalue the defense, thereby hindering the acquisition of competent defense counsel and promoting the retention of incompetent defense counsel.
To address these iniquities, this note promotes various administrative reforms, all of which could be implemented without …
What Probate Courts Cite: Lessons From The New York County Surrogate’S Court 2017-2018,
2020
Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
What Probate Courts Cite: Lessons From The New York County Surrogate’S Court 2017-2018, Bridget J. Crawford
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
By knowing what a judge cites, one may better understand what the judge believes is important, how the judge understands her work will be used, and how the judge conceives of the judicial role. Empirical scholars have devoted serious attention to the citation practices and patterns of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals, and multiple state supreme courts. Remarkably little is known about what probate courts cite. This Article makes three principal claims — one empirical, one interpretative, and one normative. This Article demonstrates through data, derived from a study of all decrees …
Rewriting Judicial Recusal Rules With Big Data,
2020
UIC John Marshall Law School
Rewriting Judicial Recusal Rules With Big Data, Raymond J. Mckoski
Utah Law Review
Big data affects the personal and professional life of every judge. A judge’s travel time to work, creditworthiness, and chances of an IRS audit all depend on predictive algorithms interpreting big data. A client’s choice of counsel, the precise wording of a litigant’s motion, and the composition of the jury may be dictated by analytics. Touted as a means of bringing objectivity to judicial decision-making, judges have employed big data to determine sentences and to set the amount of restitution in class action cases. Unfortunately, the legal profession and big data proponents have ignored one perplexing problem begging for a …
A Balanced Consideration Of The Federal Circuit’S Choice-Of-Law Rule,
2020
Harvard Law School
A Balanced Consideration Of The Federal Circuit’S Choice-Of-Law Rule, Jennifer E. Sturiale
Utah Law Review
The Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is unique. Unlike the jurisdiction of all other U.S. courts of appeals, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is defined not by its geographical boundaries, but rather by the subject matter of the original claims and compulsory counterclaims. The court has appellate jurisdiction over final decisions from all U.S. district courts if a plaintiff’s claim or a party’s counterclaim arises under the patent laws. From this unusual jurisdictional grant, the Federal Circuit has concluded that, as a policy matter, it should apply and develop its own law only if the legal issue pertains to patent law. For all …
Violating The Inviolate?: Divided Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Noneconomic Damage Caps, Focuses On Right To Jury Trial,
2020
University of Missouri School of Law
Violating The Inviolate?: Divided Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Noneconomic Damage Caps, Focuses On Right To Jury Trial, Bailey D. Barnes
Faculty Publications
On Feb. 26, in McClay v. Airport Management Services LLC, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the noneconomic damage cap provisions of the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011. The court’s analysis primarily centered on the constitutional right to a trial by jury. The justices split on whether the General Assembly maintains the authority to alter or abridge the state’s common law when doing so affects a constitutional right.
The three-justice majority concluded that noneconomic damage caps do not violate the right to a jury trial, though one of those justices authored a concurring opinion declaring the issue …
Ethical And Aggressive Appellate Advocacy: The Decision To Petition For Certiorari In Criminal Cases,
2020
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Ethical And Aggressive Appellate Advocacy: The Decision To Petition For Certiorari In Criminal Cases, J. Thomas Sullivan
St. Mary's Law Journal
Over the past six decades, United States Supreme Court decisions have dramatically reshaped the criminal justice process to provide significant protections for defendants charged in federal and state proceedings reflecting a remarkable expansion of due process and specific constitutional guarantees. For criminal defendants seeking relief based on recognition of new rules of constitutional criminal procedure, application of existing rules or precedent to novel factual scenarios, or in some cases, enforcement of existing precedent, obtaining relief requires further action on the Court’s part. In those situations, the Court’s exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction is the exclusive remedy offering an avenue for …
The Case For A Federal Criminal Court System (And Sentencing Reform),
2020
Vanderbilt University Law School
The Case For A Federal Criminal Court System (And Sentencing Reform), Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In their article in this issue, Professors Peter Menell and Ryan Vacca describe a federal court docket that is overloaded and unable to process cases efficiently. As they depict it, justice in the federal courts is either delayed or denied, disparity in legal outcomes among circuits is increasing, and the Supreme Court is falling farther and farther behind in resolving circuit splits. While these problems have been around for a while, Menell and Vacca argue they are getting worse and will only continue to worsen if radical action is not taken. Their article provides enough of a factual record to …
Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 06-2020,
2020
Roger Williams University School of Law
Rwu Law News: The Newsletter Of Roger Williams University School Of Law 06-2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden, Katie Mulvaney
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
Constitutionalism And Africa's Agenda 2063: How To Build "The Africa We Want",
2020
Brooklyn Law School
Constitutionalism And Africa's Agenda 2063: How To Build "The Africa We Want", John Mukum Mbaku
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
In 2013, Africans, under the leadership of the African Union, set out to develop a “strategic framework for the socio-economic transformation of the continent over the next 50 years.” This new development program was expected to “accelerate the implementation of past and existing continental initiatives for growth and sustainable development.” This transformative program, called Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want, was officially adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in January 2015. The heart of this ambitious development initiative are seven aspirations, which Africans hope to achieve by the …
Reflections On The Influence Of Social Media On Judging,
2020
Ontario Court of Appeal
Reflections On The Influence Of Social Media On Judging, Peter D. Lauwers Justice
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology
This essay examines the influence of social media on judging. While the ethical implications of judges’ engagement in social media have received some scholarly attention, the actual influence of social media on judging has not.1 But it is possible to make some useful observations that might at once seem obvious and disquieting.
This essay is divided into four parts. Part 1 describes the normative judicial disposition. Part 2 examines the psychology of judging. Part 3 asks what could go wrong with the judicial use of social media. Part 4 describes a stance judges might take towards social media.
Judicial Precedent In Emerging Constitutional Jurisdictions: Formulating A Doctrine Of Constitutional Stare Decisis For Singapore,
2020
Singapore Management University
Judicial Precedent In Emerging Constitutional Jurisdictions: Formulating A Doctrine Of Constitutional Stare Decisis For Singapore, Kenny Chng
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
Judicial precedents in constitutional law raiseunique stare decisis considerations. While they are authoritative pronouncementson the proper interpretation of the Constitution and are thus an essentialcomponent of constitutional law, they are also merely judicial precedents – andthus susceptible to being overturned. These considerations have been thesubject of a well-developed body of literature, especially in the context of USSupreme Court constitutional precedents.Yet, despite being a constitutional supremacy, little attention has beenpaid in Singapore to the question of the proper judicial approach towardsconstitutional precedents. This paper aims to address this issue. It will discernthe de facto principles that Singapore judges have thus far …
Article Iii Adultification Of Kids: History, Mystery, And Troubling Implications Of Federal Youth Transfers,
2020
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Article Iii Adultification Of Kids: History, Mystery, And Troubling Implications Of Federal Youth Transfers, Mae C. Quinn, Grace R. Mclaughlin
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice
There is no federal juvenile court system in the United States. Rather, teens can face charges in Article III courts and can be transferred to be tried and sentenced as adults in these venues. This Article is the first of two articles in the Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice seeking to shed light on the largely invisible processes and populations involved in federal youth prosecution. This Article focuses on the federal transfer and prosecution of American youth as adults. It considers constitutional and statutory law relating to these federal transfers and then considers why current …
School To Students: Post That, And You Won't Play,
2020
Brigham Young University Law School
School To Students: Post That, And You Won't Play, Ashley Waddoups
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Right To A Public Trial In The Time Of Covid-19,
2020
Santa Clara University
The Right To A Public Trial In The Time Of Covid-19, Stephen E. Smith
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
Maintaining social distance in the time of COVID-19 is a public health priority. A crowded courtroom is an environment at odds with public health needs. Accordingly, until science determines otherwise, it will be necessary for judges to manage courtroom attendance and exclude the public from trials, wholly or in part. Courtrooms may be closed to the public, despite the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial, when the closure is justified by a strong government interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. Typically, this heightened scrutiny is applied on a case-by-case basis and turns on a case’s specific …
Law School News: The Honorable Margaret H. Marshall: Doctor Of Laws, Honoris Causa 05-10-2020,
2020
Roger Williams University
Law School News: The Honorable Margaret H. Marshall: Doctor Of Laws, Honoris Causa 05-10-2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
