Courts Commons^™

Trading Diversity? Judicial Diversity And Case Outcomes In Federal Courts, Ryan W. Copus, Ryan Hübert, Paige Pellaton

Faculty Works

Are federal lawsuits resolved differently based on the race or gender of the judges assigned to hear them? Recent empirical research posits that women and judges of color decide cases more liberally, at least in some identity-salient areas of law. However, these studies analyze small numbers of cases and judges, and use research designs that limit their causal interpretations. Using an original dataset of all civil rights cases filed in 20 federal district courts over multiple decades and a strong causal identification strategy, we find that assignment of cases to judges of color or women has no statistically significant effect …

But For A Free Press: A Response To Press Freedom Skeptics, Kevin F. O'Neill, Patrick J. Charles

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article is divided into three Parts. Part I will outline the history-in-law case forwhy the historical record sufficiently supports recognizing distinct constitutional press freedoms. Part II then provides a history-in-law response to some of the most common arguments made by press freedom skeptics as to why distinct constitutional press freedoms should not be recognized by the courts. Lastly, Part III makes the case for why the recognition of distinct constitutional press freedoms should become a jurisprudential reality and provides a roadmap to accomplish this.

Extralegal Factors Influencing Judicial Perceptions Of Defendants With Mental Illness, Hailey Erdbruegger

Undergraduate Honors Theses

The United States has one of the highest prison populations in the world. This means millions of individuals are either incarcerated or under other forms of supervision by the criminal justice system at any one given time. All those millions of individuals had to move through the U.S. criminal courts and thus engage with multiple forms of courtroom participants along the way. Of those millions coming through the system, many have either been diagnosed with a mental illness, or have self-reported having a mental illness. This makes the personal beliefs, stigmas, and biases of the previously mentioned courtroom participants regarding …

Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, Cameron P. Hellerman

Fordham Law Review

Eminent domain is a powerful tool at the disposal of local, state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes two conditions on this sovereign power: the taking must be for “public use,” and the condemner must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. There are minimal guardrails in place to police potential misuse of the eminent domain power in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court equates “public use” with “public purpose” and applies a deferential standard of review to a condemner’s determination that a taking serves a public purpose. Nonetheless, the Court in Kelo v. City …

“Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, Or Account Of This Trial Without The Express Written Consent Of The Judge Is Prohibited”: The First Amendment And Judicial Constraints On Redistributing Courtroom Video, Frank D. Lomonte, Rachel Jones

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Measuring The Work Of The Federal District Courts, Parth Sagdeo

Buffalo Law Review

The federal district court system is one of the largest and most impactful organizations in the United States. The nation’s ninety-four district courts resolve hundreds of thousands of cases, large and small, each year. Yet surprisingly little scholarly attention has been paid to measuring the work of the federal district courts—a vitally important task. It’s important because it affects substantive law; judges routinely decide the merits of issues based on how busy they think they and other judges are. It’s important because the law relaxes procedural protections—such as the Speedy Trial Act’s seventy-day deadline to bring criminal defendants to trial—if …

Coercing Virtue Or Superintending Constitutional Order? A Comment On Munir Zulu And Celestine Mukandila V Attorney General, O'Brien Kaaba, Emmanuel N. Nyambe

SAIPAR Case Review

In Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court of Zambia intervened for the first time in a constitutional amendment process before a bill was tabled, asserting its authority to oversee executive conduct in line with constitutional principles. While the author commends the Court’s departure from a historically passive judiciary, a pointed critique is offered of the judgment’s conceptual shortcomings. The analysis highlights the Court’s conflation of constituent and constituted power, its reliance on an inaccurate historical account of past amendments, and the jurisdictional inconsistency it created with the earlier Bill 10 ruling, all of which weaken …

Disagreeing With Yourself: Horizontal Stare Decisis In State Intermediate Appellate Courts, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

Some statewide intermediate appellate courts, like those in Kansas, do not follow horizontal stare decisis one panel of the court can disagree with, but not overrule, another. This article reviews how precedential disagreements arise in the Kansas Court of Appeals, what the costs and benefits are of not following horizontal stare decisis, and how attorneys might change their advocacy approach in a state like Kansas. The article concludes that the benefits of the Kansas practice achieving better development of the law and justice in individual cases outweighs the harm of less predictability in precedent

A Distinctive Court: A Glimpse Into The History And Significance Of The D.C. Circuit, Judge J. Michelle Childs

Fordham Law Review

Judge J. Michelle Childs serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before her appointment, Judge Childs received a B.A. from the University of South Florida Honors College and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She also received Masters degrees from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business and from Duke University School of Law, as well as an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the University of South Carolina. After working in private practice for eight years, Judge Childs received an appointment to serve as the Deputy Director for the …

Text, Context, Or Both?: Considering When And How To Use Statutory History In The New Textualist Framework, Devon Brostoff

Fordham Law Review

Statutory history represents the evolution of a statute through enacted amendments. Although textualists have widely rejected traditional forms of legislative history, statutory history has not received the same fate. Instead, textualists have accepted the use of statutory history as a resource separate from—and superior to—legislative history. Thus, this Note examines how courts are using statutory history, focusing primarily on the author’s analysis of a set of courts of appeals cases that rely on statutory history. Using these cases, this Note explores whether statutory history is best understood as text or context within the interpretation process. Further, this Note challenges the …

“Shipping” Away The Captive Audience Meeting, Nathan Kakalec

Fordham Law Review

On November 14, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned seventy-six years of labor law precedent by banning captive audience meetings in Amazon.com Services LLC. Captive audience meetings, mandatory meetings where employers discuss unionization with their employees, were a powerful anti-union tool used by employers to coerce their employees into rejecting unionization. The NLRB argues that captive audience meetings are inconsistent with § 7 and § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers reject the NLRB’s assertion and contend that banning captive audience meetings infringes on their First Amendment right to communicate their views on unionization. …

Antiracist Expert Evidence, Jasmine Gonzales Rose, Asees Bhasin, Spencer Piston

Faculty Scholarship

Since 2020, when mass protests against racism swept across the United States, scholars, lawyers, and the general public have become increasingly aware that racism permeates society and the criminal legal system, from overt racial animus to the nuanced effects of structural racism. Demonstrating the influence of racism is therefore vital to the practice of criminal defense, yet many attorneys do not know how to prove racism in court. We surveyed over seven hundred criminal-defense attorneys across the United States, and nearly half had never heard of expert witnesses testifying or submitting written reports on racism—what we call “antiracist expert evidence.” …

Troubling Trends: Ada Definition-Of-Disability Cases 2019–2023, Nicole Buonocore Porter

Pepperdine Law Review

This empirical Article continues my every-five-year tradition of examining every federal case discussing the definition of disability since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was amended, effective 2009. The results of this research from the third five-year period (2019–2023) are disappointing in both familiar and surprising ways. Similar to the 2014–2018 period, we continue to see way too many courts incorrectly applying (or not even citing to) the ADA Amendments Act. Moreover, I discovered several new troubling trends in this dataset that raise the possibility that we might be heading toward another backlash against ADA plaintiffs. This Article presents my …

Blunting The “Tools At Hand”: Recent Developments In Delaware Books-And-Records Demand Law, Daniel Meyer

University of Miami Business Law Review

In recent years, and despite their heeding the guidance of Delaware courts, stockholders’ use of the statutory books-and-records investigation mechanism under Delaware Code Title 8, Section 220 (“Section 220”) has been much maligned, with commentators blaming Section 220 actions for straining judicial resources and causing companies unnecessary costs and burdens. Moreover, Delaware’s legislature and courts have taken steps to curb stockholders’ inspection rights, blunting a crucial tool needed to develop allegations in meritorious cases so that stockholders can bring cases that survive motions to dismiss and continue into plenary discovery.

Instead of blindly accepting a narrative regarding a Section 220 …

Assisted Outpatient Treatment: A State-By-State Comparative Review, E. Lea Johnston, Autumn Klein

Cleveland State Law Review

Assisted outpatient treatment, otherwise known as preventive outpatient commitment, is rapidly expanding across the United States, aiming to address mental health needs and reduce homelessness, hospital costs, and community violence. Since 2019, fifteen preventive outpatient commitment statutes have been passed or expanded. These statutes, which authorize courts to mandate community treatment for nondangerous individuals with mental illnesses, have evaded close scrutiny, rest on misconceptions, and raise significant constitutional concerns. An analysis of legislative debates, court opinions, and scholarship reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the prevalence of these laws, which contributes to their speedy passage. Additionally, no analysis exists of these …

Remaking Rulemaking: Lessons From The History Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Brad Baranowski, Emery G. Lee Iii

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article uses the lost history of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to provide a framework for rulemaking at the busy intersection of complex litigation and appellate finality. The drafters of the original civil rules spent more time thinking through how to efficiently combine claims and parties in civil actions—a promised benefit of the proposed law-equity merger—than about how combined claims should be dis-assembled. This failure would haunt the original Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for years. Nowhere was this more evident than in the first decades of Rule 54(b)’s existence.

Promulgated in 1938, Rule 54(b) was designed to …

Courting Oblivion Part Ii: How To Revive American Reconstruction By Feigning Forgetfulness, Joshua J. Schroeder

Cleveland State Law Review

This is the second part of the three-part Courting Oblivion series on the legal concept of oblivion, meaning legal forgetfulness, letting go of the past, or forgiveness usually to predicate a second chance, a restart, or even an era of reconstruction. This Article demonstrates how to apply the “right to move on” described in Part I to the law in the United States through acts of oblivion and amnesty. It describes the general uses of acts of oblivion and amnesty to the general framework of government in the United States, leading to the final discussion in Part III about the …

A New Equal Protection And Due Process Clause: Pushing Back On The Eleventh Circuit’S Error In Corbitt, Alberto Bufalino

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Gender-Affirming Care, Justin J. Soulas

Theses and Dissertations

As of recent, twenty-four states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care, restricting minors from accessing medically necessary treatment. Existing scholarship has begun to explore the profound impact of these bans on transgender youth, their parents or guardians, and the medical professionals who support them. However, the body of literature on this rapidly evolving issue remains limited. This thesis aims to fill that gap by offering a legal defense of gender-affirming care, grounded in judicial precedent. It argues that parental rights to make medical decisions for their children—recognized in constitutional jurisprudence—extend to decisions involving gender-affirming treatment. Additionally, it draws on anti-discrimination …

Brief Of Amici Curiae 775 Law Professors In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And Declaratory And Permanent Injunctive Relief, Wilfred U. Codrington Iii, Haiyun Damon-Feng, Rebecca Ingber, Rachel Landy, Jacob Noti-Victor, Alexander A. Reinert, Anthony J. Sebok

Amicus Briefs

Amicus curiae brief submitted by 775 law professors in support of Susman Godfrey LLP's motion for summary judgment and request for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief in Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President. The brief argues that Executive Order 14263 unlawfully targets a law firm based on its clients, advocacy, and litigation activities, in violation of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment. The amici contend that the order constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, interferes with the right to counsel, and threatens the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law.