Courts Commons^™

Gender And Consensus On The Courts, Kaleigh A. Ruiz

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

During group deliberation, women tend to be the harbingers of compromise, vying for consensus on even the most contentious topics. However, women cannot succeed in this endeavor if gender bias prevents their voices from being heard. In federal courts, collaboration is essential to reaching the simple majority needed to resolve a case. While the courts already function under norms of collegiality during deliberations, the practice of writing a separate opinion to acknowledge disagreement with a majority opinion remains relatively common. In this Article, I test two competing theories as to the effects of women judges on consensus. On one hand, …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Fordham Law Review

One hundred and twenty years ago, in 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of the single most notorious opinions in history, striking down a New York labor law for violating the right to contract—a right found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. Though the era of Lochner v. New York is well past us, the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case remain. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the president, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts.

Bringing together two …

Who Counts As A "Reasonable Employee"? The Third Circuit's Bungling Of Section 8(A)(1) Violations, Ben Milstein

Washington Law Review

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects private employees’ right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to self-organize labor unions, while section 8 outlines numerous unfair labor practices. Specifically, section 8(a)(1) bans employer interference, coercion, or restraint of any section 7 rights. In a 2022 case, FDRLST Media v. NLRB, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that FDRLST Media’s executive officer’s tweet constituted a section 8(a)(1) violation. This Comment examines the history of section 8(a)(1) violations, specifically discussing the widely …

Lawyers' Client-Inclusive Negotiations: The "New Mediation"?, Nancy A. Welsh, Donna Shestowsky

Faculty Scholarship

When proponents initially urged the courts to institutionalize mediation for the resolution of general civil cases, they argued that the procedure would be superior to trial—and also to lawyers’ settlement negotiations—in terms of parties’ exercise of self-determination, satisfaction with outcomes, and opportunity for voice. These claims, however, rested on certain assumptions, particularly regarding the implementation of mediation and lawyers’ settlement negotiations. In mediation, the parties were to take center stage, with the mediator assisting them by facilitating their communication and negotiation so that they could reach a customized resolution. Lawyers’ settlement negotiations in general civil litigation, meanwhile, were assumed to …

Climate Change In The Courts: A 2025 Retrospective, Maria Antonia Tigre, Margaret Barry

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

Drawing from cases collected in the Sabin Center’s Climate Litigation Database, this report offers insights into global climate litigation developments during 2025. This third installment in our year-end series provides a snapshot of how the field of climate litigation evolved over the course of the year. The report revisits significant rulings from around the world and connects them to eight illustrative themes: (1) climate change in international courts and tribunals; (2) environmental assessment and permitting; (3) non-compliance with climate commitments; (4) constitutional and human rights; (5) greenwashing and climate-washing; (6) corporate accountability cases; (7) standing; and (8) deregulatory suits.

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Representing The Incommunicado Client: Regulating The Attorney-Client Relationship In A Civil Rights Emergency, Michael Kagan

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

When the government obstructs a detainee’s ability to communicate with attorneys, normal rules governing the formation of attorney-client relationships break down. While some work-arounds exist to allow lawyers to bring such cases to court, they have significant limitations and can create problems of their own. The legal profession and the courts should adopt new rules modeled on emergency medicine to facilitate the filing of urgent civil rights claims for clients who are not in a position to consent. In emergency medicine, physicians can presume client consent for certain narrow and urgent purposes. Certain lawyers, in extreme cases, should be able …

A Dangerous Challenge To The Constitutionality Of The Felon-In-Possession Statute: United States V. Bullock, Matthew Matherne

MC Law Review

In United States v. Bullock, Judge Carlton Reeves held that the federal felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock. Although Mr. Bullock had been previously convicted of multiple violent felonies involving a firearm, including one that resulted in the death of an individual, Judge Reeves dismissed the charges because the government failed to establish a historical tradition of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Judge Reeves’ determination that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock is a decision that is not only “dangerous” to society, but it contradicts the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. …

The Mississippi Court Of Appeals 30th Anniversary Commemoration And Panel Discussion, Donna M. Barnes

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Not So Firmly Settled: How The Inconsistent Jurisprudence Of The Firm Resettlement Bar Serves As A Tool For Asylum Seeker Exclusion, Caroline V. Garrido

Fordham Law Review

The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law. Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country. Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement. This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

Tapping Out Of The Wiretap: Whether Consumers Have A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Against Internet Tracking Technology, Ashley Faranesh

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a statute born in an era of rotary phones and analog surveillance, is now at the heart of a legal crisis over internet tracking and privacy. Plaintiffs have increasingly weaponized the CIPA against online businesses that use standard Web-tracking tools, triggering a wave of litigation that stretches the statute far beyond its intended purpose. This Note argues that such application misreads the legislative intent behind the CIPA and risks destablizing core structures of the internet economy and financially crippling online businesses. Courts applying literal interpretations are undermining the CIPA’s purpose by conflating commonplace …

Turbulence In The Courts: Jetblue Suffers From Faulty Antitrust Actions, Rudolph Veiga

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Recently, the Department of Justice has become the leading force behind antitrust challenges against airline alliances and mergers. Unfortunately, it is difficult for someone to determine when the department will challenge an airline joint venture because the department has not consistently challenged all alliances or mergers over the last few years. JetBlue Airways defended itself against two different antitrust challenges by the department—one against the Northeast Alliance with American Airlines, and one against the acquisition of Spirit Airlines—and JetBlue lost both. The Department of Justice did not challenge the merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines, which was finalized just …

Myth Busters: A Review Of “Debt’S Grip”, Susan Block-Lieb

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Debt’s Grip follows a long line of literature that looks to combat legal and cultural myths about consumer debt and consumer bankruptcy with quantitative and qualitative analysis on these topics. Who files for bankruptcy and why? Fighting longstanding myths is tough work, but Pamela Foohey, Robert M. Lawless and Deborah Thorne have marshalled a strong set of tools, and strong intellectual allies, to support this epic battle.

Power, Tools, And Process: Some Reflections On Bankruptcy Minimalism, Edward J. Janger

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

In Unjust Debts: How Our Bankruptcy System Makes America More Unequal, Melissa Jacoby offers a brilliant and sweeping indictment of the way in which bankruptcy law is currently practiced in the United States. As she puts it, “This book is a story of falling out of love. With a law.” Like me, Professor Jacoby came of professional age, at the close of the first age of the Bankruptcy Code. Enacted in 1978, we both learned the statute in the mid-1990s, at a time when the transformative power of the 1978 Code was reaching its peak. On the business side, corporations …

Doktrin Penyalahgunaan Hak (Abus Des Droit), Syukron Salam

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The present article examines the emergence of the doctrine of abus de droit in France in the mid-twentieth century through an analysis of key judicial decisions and the debates that followed them. The study commences with an exposition of the manner in which the evolution of capitalism, concomitant with the escalating economic disparity and the propagation of societal challenges, has influenced the judicial approach to the abstract Roman-law tradition of absolute rights. In light of this, the article contends that the civil-law tradition exhibited a fundamental flaw in its conceptualisation of rights as absolute, thereby overlooking objections that were firmly …

Should The Army Be Involved In Divorce? Re-Examining The Pre-Divorce Defaults For Spousal Support, Artem M. Joukov, Thomas Godfrey

MC Law Review

Army Regulation 608-99 assigns a large portion of a Soldier’s paycheck to the spouse upon marital separation. The assignment occurs without a hearing, discovery, or consideration of critical evidence which might moderate the amount of support. The obligation rests on the Soldier to obtain a court order or spousal agreement to reduce the financial burden. The adversarial nature of modern divorces renders these requirements unrealistic. Amending the regulation would ease the burden of the Soldier, which is desirable in light of the ongoing recruitment crisis and the need to attract recruits and retain those already in the service.

What's Appealing In Mississippi?, Virginia C. Carlton

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Liening On The Court: Examining Loblolly Properties, Llc V. Le Papillon Homeowner's Association, Inc. And The Future Of Lien Priority In Mississippi, Thomas C. Jones

MC Law Review

The Mississippi Supreme Court in Loblolly Properties, LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association, Inc. held that the nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust does not extinguish restrictive covenants to pay HOA fees that were filed after the recording of the deed of trust.  In doing so, the Court blatantly disregarded the fundamental understanding of lien priority in Mississippi, and also failed to explain how the policy behind lien priority would further be upheld in the future. This decision by the Supreme Court is incorrect and places Mississippi in a “super-minority” of jurisdictions on this issue.  The overwhelming majority of …