Courts Commons^™

Supreme Court Leaks And Recusals: A Response To Professor Steven Lubet’S Scotus Ethics In The Wake Of Nfib V. Sebelius, 47 Val. U. L. Rev. 925 (2013), Kevin Hopkins

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

As Professor Steven Lubet notes in his article, Stonewalling, Leaks, and Counter-Leaks: SCOTUS Ethics in the Wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, the ethical conduct of Supreme Court Justices has once again gained national attention. This time, however, the context for public outcry is due to actions of an in-house source who released confidential information to a member of the press concerning the voting behavior and the overall sentiments of members of the Court's minority in one of the most significant and controversial rulings of the year: NFIB v. Sebelius (the "Affordable Care Act"). Professor Lubet uses this leaking of significant …

Ripples Against The Other Shore: The Impact Of Trauma Exposure On The Immigration Process Through Adjudicators, Kate Aschenbrenner

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Through The Eyes Of Jurors: The Use Of Schemas In The Application Of "Plain-Language" Jury Instructions, Sara Gordon

Scholarly Works

"Through the Eyes of Jurors" is the first law journal article to consider all of the major cognitive psychology studies that examine how "schemas," or the preexisting notions jurors have about the law, shape jurors' use of jury instructions, even when those jurors are given "plain-language" instructions. This Article examines the social science research on schema theory in order to advance our understanding of how schemas continue to influence jurors' use of jury instructions, even when those jurors are given "plain language" instructions.

A significant body of legal literature has examined jurors' use and understanding of jury instructions, and many …

Dubious Deference: Reassessing Appellate Standards Of Review In Immigration Appeals, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

The long-standing doctrine of deferential review by appellate courts of findings of fact by administrative agencies is seriously flawed for two main reasons. First, the most prominent justification for deference relies on the empirical assumption that first-instance adjudicators are best able to determine the truth because they can directly view witness demeanor. Decades of social science research has proven this assumption about the value of demeanor false. Second, in principle, the deference rule applies to all types of administrative adjudication, with no attention to the relative gravity of interests at stake in different types of cases or to the varying …

What Was Wrong With The Record?, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Shelby County v. Holder offers three reasons for why the record Congress amassed to support the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was legally insufficient to justify the statute's continued regional application: (1) the problems Congress documented in 2006 were not as severe as those that prompted it to craft the regime in 1965; (2) these problems did not lead Congress to alter the statute's pre-existing coverage formula; and (3) these problems did not exclusively involve voter registration and the casting of ballots.

The Impact Of Local Patent Rules On Rate And Timing Of Case Resolution Relative To Claim Construction: An Empirical Study Of The Past Decade, Pauline M. Pelletier

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Fairness And Politics At The Icty: Evidence From The Indictments, 39 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 45 (2013), Stuart K. Ford

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Waiving Goodbye To A Fundamental Right: Allocation Of Authority Between Attorneys And Clients And The Right To A Public Trial, 38 J. Legal Prof. 1 (2013), Alberto Bernabe

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Deferring To Secrecy, 54 B.C. L. Rev. 185 (2013), Margaret B. Kwoka

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

In prescribing de novo judicial review of agencies' decisions to withhold requested information from the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Congress deliberately and radically departed from the typical deferential treatment courts are required to give to agencies. Nonetheless, empirical studies demonstrate that the de novo review standard on the books in FOIA cases is not the standard used in practice. In fact, despite being subject to the stringent de novo standard, agencies' FOIA decisions are upheld at a substantially higher rate than agency decisions that are entitled to deferential review. This Article posits that although courts recite …

The Law And Science Of Video Game Violence: What Was Lost In Translation?, 31 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 297 (2013), William K. Ford

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

"[A]s a general rule," writes Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Edward Humes, "courts don't do science very well."' Susan Haack, a professor of law and philosophy, elaborates on why this may be true, offering several reasons for "deep tensions" between science and law. The reasons offered by Haack may be less of a concern where the dispute involves litigation against the government on significant questions of public policy. Recent decisions assessing the constitutionality of laws restricting minors' access to violent video games therefore offer an opportunity to examine how well the courts handled scientific evidence in a situation lacking some of the …

Toward A Conceptual Framework For Trauma-Responsive Practice In Courts, Shawn C. Marsh, Joan Byer

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

Constructing Courts: Architecture, The Ideology Of Judging, And The Public Sphere, Allison Anna Tait

Law Faculty Publications

In several countries, governments have embarked on major building expansion programs for their judiciaries. The new buildings posit the courtroom as their center and the judge as that room’s pivot. These contemporary projects follow the didactic path laid out in Medieval and Renaissance town halls, which repeatedly deployed symbolism in efforts to shape norms. Dramatic depictions then reminded judges to be loyal subjects of the state. In contrast, modern buildings narrate not only the independence of judges but also the dominion of judges, insulated from the state. The significant allocation of public funds reflects the prestige accorded to courts by …

Innovation And Litigation: Tensions Between Universities And Patents And How To Fix Them, Jacob H. Rooksby

Law Faculty Publications

Universities that own patents have a problem. While nearly all are keen to enhance their revenue generated from patents, few are eager or prepared to enforce them in court, alone or with their exclusive licensees, should a third party deploy a product or process covered by a university-owned patent. Yet strict prudential standing requirements imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) effectively require university participation as plaintiffs in enforcement lawsuits over their exclusively licensed patents, regardless of a university’s effective ability or enthusiasm to participate in a given action. Supported by forty years of …

Effective Trial Counsel After Martinez V. Ryan: Focusing On The Adequacy Of State Procedures, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

Everyone knows that excessive caseloads, poor funding, and a lack of training plague indigent defense delivery systems throughout the states, such that the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright is largely unfulfilled. Commentators have disagreed about how best to breathe life into Gideon . Many disclaim any possibility that federal habeas corpus review of state criminal cases could catalyze reform give n the many procedural obstacle s that currently prevent state prisoners from getting into federal court. But the Supreme Court has recently taken a renewed interest in using federal habeas review to address the problem of ineffective attorneys in state …

The Pastor, The Burning House, And The Double Jeopardy Clause: The True Story Behind Evans V. Michigan, David A. Moran

Articles

The true story behind Evans v. Michigan is that a man who was probably innocent, and who would almost certainly have been acquitted by the jury, had his trial shortened after it became obvious to the judge that the police had picked up a man who had nothing to do with the fire. In other words, the facts set forth by the Michigan Supreme Court, and repeated by Alito, were grossly misleading. And because I, like Alito, believed the Michigan Supreme Court’s version of the facts, I made a silly mistake when I agreed to take the case. That silly …

Antitrust And The Judicial Virtues, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Although commentators frequently debate how judges should decide antitrust cases substantively, little attention has been paid to theories of judicial virtue in antitrust decision making. This essay considers four pairings of virtues: (1) striving for substantive purity versus conceding to institutional realism; (2) incrementalism versus generalism; (3) presenting a unified face versus candidly conceding differences among judges on an appellate panel; and (4) adhering strictly to stare decisis versus freely updating precedents to reflect evolving economic learning or conditions. While recognizing the complexities that sometimes pull judges in the opposite direction, this Article gives the nod to institutional realism, incrementalism, …

The S&P Litigation And Access To Federal Court: A Case Study In The Limits Of Our Removal Model, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On June 6, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of fifteen actions filed by state attorneys general against the Standard & Poor’s rating agency for its role in the collapse of the market for structured finance securities. The cases are important: The underlying events shook markets worldwide and contributed to a global recession, the legal actions themselves take aim at foundational aspects of the way rating agencies go about their business, and the suits threaten the imposition of significant fines and penalties against S&P. So it is unsurprising that the order of the MDL …

On Estimating Disparity And Inferring Causation: Sur-Reply To The U.S. Sentencing Commission Staff, Sonja B. Starr, M. Marit Rehavi

Articles

In this Essay, Professors Starr and Rehavi respond to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s empirical staff’s criticisms of their recent article, which found, contrary to the Commission’s prior work, no evidence that racial disparity in sentences increased in response to United States v. Booker. As Starr and Rehavi suggest, their differences with the Commission perhaps relate to differing objectives. The Commission staff’s reply expresses a lack of interest in identifying Booker’s causal effects; in contrast, that is Starr and Rehavi’s central objective. In addition, Starr and Rehavi’s approach also accounts for disparities arising throughout the post-arrest justice process, extending beyond the …

Family Court Mediation After The Financial Crisis: A Struggle Worth New York's Attention, Jessica G. Mayer

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note examines the effects of the recession on the use of mediation in New York State's family courts and argues that mediation ought to be used more, rather than less, to combat the effects of budget cuts. Section I discusses New York State's Family Court System, highlighting the system's rising caseload and dearth of resources. Section II briefly describes mediation and its use within the family court context. Section III describes the impact of the recession on NY State's Family Courts. In addition, detailed information is provided about the impact of the recession on the following programs: (1) the …

State Courts Or Adr In Nazi-Era Art Disputes: A Choice "More Apparent Than Real"?, Christa Roodt

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This article explores the first and arguably most important procedural choice a party can make when instituting a claim in respect to Nazi-era art, namely between alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") and state court litigation. A sound analysis of the meeting points and potential conflicts of processes involving administrative bodies, ADR fora and the judiciary can contribute to more effective law reform.