Courts Commons^™

The Disdain Campaign, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A response to Pamela S. Karlan, The Supreme Court 2011 Term Forward: Democracy and Disdain, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

In her Foreword, Professor Pamela Karlan offers a quite remarkable critique of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. She faults them not so much for the doctrines they purport to follow, or outcomes they reach, but for the attitude they allegedly manifest toward Congress and the people. “My focus here is not so much on the content of the doctrine but on the character of the analysis.” She describes Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion of the Court as …

Decarceration Courts: Possibilities And Perils Of A Shifting Criminal Law, Allegra M. Mcleod

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A widely decried crisis confronts U.S. criminal law. Jails and prisons are overcrowded and violence plagued. Additional causes for alarm include the rate of increase of incarcerated populations, their historically and internationally unprecedented size, their racial disproportionality, and exorbitant associated costs. Although disagreement remains over the precise degree by which incarceration ought to be reduced, there is a growing consensus that some measure of decarceration is desirable.

With hopes of reducing reliance on conventional criminal supervision and incarceration, specialized criminal courts proliferated dramatically over the past two decades. There are approximately 3,000 specialized criminal courts in the United States, including …

The Distinctiveness Of Appellate Adjudication, Heidi Li Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This paper concerns two topics which, I hope to show, are vitally connected. One is the distinctive importance of appellate adjudication in the legal system of United States. The other is the workings of entangled concepts in the law. That appellate adjudication is important in some sense may seem obvious to everybody (to a few it will seem obvious that appellate adjudication is unimportant). My point will be that via appellate adjudication courts engineer entangled legal concepts, and it is this aspect of appellate adjudication that is both crucial and unique to it, at least in the U.S. legal system. …

The Ghost That Slayed The Mandate, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed …

Upside-Down Judicial Review, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

The countermajoritarian difficulty assumes that the democratically elected branches are majoritarian and the unelected Supreme Court is not. But sometimes the opposite is true. Sometimes it is the elected branches that are out of sync with majority will and the Supreme Court that bridges the gap, turning the conventional understanding of the Court's role on its head. Instead of a countermajoritarian Court checking the majoritarian branches, we see a majoritarian Court checking the not-so-majoritarian branches, enforcing prevailing norms when the representative branches do not. What emerges is a distinctly majoritarian, upside-down understanding of judicial review. This Article illustrates, explains, and …

Understanding The Value Of Judicial Diversity Through The Native American Lens, Paige E. Hoster

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

"[This] I Know From My Grandfather:" The Battle For Admissibility Of Indigenous Oral History As Proof Of Tribal Land Claims, Hope M. Babcock

American Indian Law Review

A major obstacle indigenous land claimants must face is the applicationof federal evidentiary rules, like the hearsay doctrine, which block the useof oral history to establish legal claims. It is often oral history and storiesthat tribes rely upon as evidence to support their claims, reducingsubstantially the likelihood of a tribe prevailing. Indigenous oral historypresents unique challenges to judges when faced with its admissibility.Canadian courts have largely overcome these challenges by interpretingevidentiary rules liberally, in favor of the aborigines. As such, Canadianaborigines have enjoyed greater land claim success than indigenousclaimants in the United States, raising the question why United Statescourts do …

Sword Or Submission? American Indian Natural Resource Claims Settlement Legislation, Benjamin A. Kahn

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Winner, Best Appellate Brief In The 2012 Native American Law Student Association Moot Court Competition, Jocelyn Jenks, Jacquelyn Amour Jampolsky

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pragmatic Court: Reinterpreting The Supreme People’S Court Of China, Taisu Zhang

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the institutional motivations that underlie several major developments in the Supreme People's Court of China's recent policy-making. Since 2007, the SPC has sent off a collection of policy signals that escapes sweeping ideological labeling: it has publically embraced a populist view of legal reform by encouraging the use of mediation in dispute resolution and popular participation in judicial policy-making, while continuing to advocate legal professionalization as a long-term policy objective. It has also eagerly attempted to enhance its own institutional competence by promoting judicial efficiency, simplifying key areas of civil law, and expanding its control over lower …

Transplanting The European Court Of Justice: The Experience Of The Andean Tribunal Of Justice, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter, Osvaldo Saldias

Faculty Scholarship

Although there is an extensive literature on domestic legal transplants, far less is known about the transplantation of supranational judicial bodies. The Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) is one of eleven copies of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the third most active international court. This article considers the origins and evolution of the ATJ as a transplanted judicial institution. It first reviews the literatures on legal transplants, neofunctionalist theory, and the spread of European ideas and institutions, explaining how the intersection of these literatures informs the study of supranational judicial transplants. The article next explains why the Andean …

Its Hour Come Round At Last? State Sovereign Immunity And The Great State Debt Crisis Of The Early Twenty-First Century, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

State sovereign immunity is a sort of constitutional comet, streaking across the sky once a century to the amazement and consternation of legal commentators. The comet’s appearance has usually coincided with major state debt crises: The Revolutionary War debts brought us Chisholm v. Georgia and the Eleventh Amendment, and the Reconstruction debts brought us Hans v. Louisiana and the Amendment’s extension to federal question cases. This essay argues that much of our law of state sovereign immunity, including its odd fictions and otherwise-incongruous exceptions, can be understood as an effort to maintain immunity’s core purpose — protecting the states from …

‘The Ordinary Diet Of The Law’: The Presumption Against Preemption In The Roberts Court, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

In a preemption case decided over a decade ago, Justice Breyer wrote that “in today’s world, filled with legal complexity, the true test of federalist principle may lie . . . in those many statutory cases where courts interpret the mass of technical detail that is the ordinary diet of the law.” This article surveys the Roberts Court’s preemption jurisprudence, focusing on five cases decided in OT 2010. Young argues that Justice Breyer was right — that is, that because current federalism jurisprudence largely eschews any effort to define exclusive spheres of state and federal regulatory jurisdiction, the most important …

The Burdens And Benefits Of Brighton, Laurence R. Helfer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Standing The Test Of Time: The Breadth Of Majority Coalitions And The Fate Of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents, Stuart M. Benjamin, Bruce A. Desmarais

Faculty Scholarship

Should a strategic Justice assemble a broader coalition for the majority opinion than is necessary, even if that means accommodating changes that move the opinion away from the author’s ideal holding? If the author’s objective is to durably move the law to his or her ideal holding, the conventional answer is no, because there is a cost and no corresponding benefit. We consider whether attracting a broad majority coalition can placate future courts. Controlling for the size of the coalition, we find that cases with ideologically narrow coalitions are more likely to be treated negatively by later courts. Specifically, adding …

Introduction, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Case Management In The Circuit Courts, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

State Amici, Collective Action, And The Development Of Federalism Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Georgia Law Review

State attorneys general (SAGs) have been individually
and collectively active on many legal and regulatory fronts
in recent years. One of those activities has been the filing
of amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme

Court, especially in cases impacting the states and
federalism doctrine. Frequently SAGs will join in one
amicus brief, and briefs signed by forty or more states are
not uncommon. This phenomenon has been the subject of
attention by legal scholars and political scientists, but the
normative jurisprudential significance of such briefs has
not. In their opinions, the Justices vary in how much legal
weight, …

The Gangs Of Asylum, Linda K. Hill

Georgia Law Review

Should immigrants fleeing gang violence be entitled to
refuge in the United States? Today, the response of most
U.S. courts is "no." The principal means by which an
individual fleeing his home country seeks safety in the
United States is by qualifying for asylum or withholding
of removal. Notwithstanding some critical distinctions
between asylum and withholding of removal, each
protection requires a claimant to demonstrate his fear of

persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group or political
opinion. Yet rather than evaluating gang-based claims
upon existing refugee standards, the courts are
manipulating the …

Human Rights And Counterterrorism: A Contradiction Or Necessary Bedfellows?, Amos N. Guiora

Georgia Law Review

Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, questions
remain regarding the relationship between human rights
and counterterrorism. The historical track record of the
Executive Branch, Supreme Court, and Congress in this
vein is troubling. While the contradiction suggested in
this Essay's title need not be the case, it is, nevertheless,
the persistent reality in American history.
This Essay assesses the current relationship between
human rights and counterterrorism. In doing so, it
reflects on wartime measures implemented by presidents
throughout U.S. history and recommends a way forward
that facilitates more effective protection of human rights

without impinging on legitimate national security …