Courts Commons^™

The Rise And [?] Of Anti-Administrativism, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Scholars have proclaimed the administrative state to be "Under Siege" or subject to a "Never-Ending Assault." Was the election of President Donald Trump on November 5, 2024 the sixth, if not yet the seventh, day around the walls? 

This seems an appropriate time to consider the present and future of opposition to the administrative state – something that has come to be dubbed "anti-administrativism." The first task, as is usually the case when one seeks intellectual clarity, is to figure out what one is talking about. What is this "anti-administrativism"? Without knowing the answer to that seemingly simple question, one …

Life, The Universe, And The Judicial Power, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

In figuring out the role of the federal courts in the constitutional structure, the obvious place to start is with the Constitution. But what does the Constitution tell us about the federal courts and the judicial power vested in them?

Surprisingly little—perhaps even shockingly little—when one reflects on it. The “judicial Power” is one of the three governmental powers regarded by the founding generation as having “an unalterable foundation in nature.” The Constitution, however, does not define that power, instead taking for granted that everyone will simply know what “judicial Power” involves. History has proven that assumption to be false. …

The Elected Judge, Matthew Dale Kim

UF Law Faculty Publications

Many legal scholars and jurists oppose electing judges. Their core criticism against judicial elections is that elected judges are incentivized to avoid issuing unpopular, countermajoritarian decisions in constitutional law cases and thus fail to safeguard minority rights against abuses of the majority. Scholars have described this problem as the elected judges’ “majoritarian difficulty.” Numerous empirical studies suggest that elected judges do, in fact, fear electoral backlash and allow majoritarian demands to affect their decision-making.

This Article asks whether such fears are warranted. Elected judges should not allow majoritarian pressures to affect their decision-making unless the American public is aware of …

Section 4 -- Jury, Trial: A Misnomer In The Faa, Tracey B. Frisch

American University Business Law Review

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), according to the Supreme Court, was not merely to reverse judicial hostility towards arbitration by placing agreements to arbitrate on the same footing as other contracts but to actively promote the use of arbitration on a national scale. It is not surprising then that most provisions of the FAA envision limited court intervention into the arbitration process.

From Downes To Dobbs: Why Stare Decisis Should Not Stop The Court From Overturning The Territorial Incorporation Doctrine, Gino Piccinini

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Do Federal Circuit Courts Of Appeal Provide Adequate Assistance To Self-Represented Litigants? A Review Of The Circuits’ Websites Resources, Jona Goldschmidt

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated …

Guilty Pleas Matter: Waivers And The Forgotten Solemnity Of A Sacred Process, Julian A. Cook Iii

UF Law Faculty Publications

Approximately 98% of federal cases are resolved by means of a guilty plea. Thus, it is the guilty plea hearing, not the jury trial, that is the heart and lungs of our criminal justice system. Given the frequency of its use, coupled with the deeply impactful personal consequences that necessarily accompany a conviction, district courts play a critical evaluative and safeguarding function. As famously stated by the Supreme Court in Brady v. United States, the decision to plead guilty “is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment . . . .”

Guilty Pleas …

"Then What?": A Framework For Life Without Chevron, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce. What happens next? What should happen next?

This essay does not try to answer either of those important questions. Rather, it seeks to provide a framework to promote careful thinking about those questions. Specifically, any predictive or prescriptive account of the law governing judicial review of federal agency legal interpretations needs to think carefully about four issues.

First, what does “deference” actually mean in any given context? “Deference” can mean anything from polite respect to absolute obeisance, and everything in …

Symposium Transcript, In Re Opioid Litigation: The Pretrial Phase, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

In October 2023, Touro Law Center held a two-day conference on “The Past and Future of Opioid Litigation.” The inspiration for the conference was an extraordinary five-month jury trial in Suffolk County presided over by Hon. Jerry Garguilo. The trial, which was the first in the United States to include all parties in the pharmaceutical supply chain, from manufacturers to wholesale distributors to retail sellers, began in the summer of 2021. As Touro Law Dean Elena Langan notes in her introductory remarks below, because of the pandemic, the trial began and continued for a period of time in the auditorium …

Symposium Transcript, In Re Opioid Litigation: The Trial Phase, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

In October 2023, Touro Law Center held a two-day conference on “The Past and Future of Opioid Litigation.” The inspiration for the conference was an extraordinary five-month jury trial in Suffolk County presided over by Hon. Jerry Garguilo. The trial, which was the first in the United States to include all parties in the pharmaceutical supply chain, from manufacturers to wholesale distributors to retail sellers, began in the summer of 2021. Ultimately, in 2022, the case settled. This allowed Judge Garguilo and attorneys from the case – Jayne Conroy, who represented one of the plaintiffs, Suffolk County, and Harvey Bartle, …

Addressing Opioid Use Disorder In The Middle East And North Africa (Mena) Regions, Alyaa Chace

Touro Law Review

The opioid crisis has devastated communities across the United States, prompting extensive litigation against pharmaceutical companies for their role in fueling addiction. Aggressive pharmaceutical marketing has led to the development of key lawsuits against Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the Sackler family, Johnson & Johnson, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, as well as a landmark $26 billion global settlement involving major distributors. U.S. courts have played a crucial role in corporate accountability, mandating record financial settlements alongside behavioral and policy reforms. By contrast, the opioid crisis in MENA, which stemmed largely from illicit drug trafficking often linked to geopolitical instability, has been more often met …

“In Defiance Of Gifts”: The Dutch Origins Of The Foreign Emoluments Clause, Liam E. Cronan

Touro Law Review

Starting in 2017, a series of lawsuits against President Donald Trump grounded their arguments on a long-overlooked portion of the Constitution: the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which in its most basic form bans government officials from accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign entities. Until 2017, few courts or scholars had ever scrutinized this provision. But with Trump’s presidency and enduring reports of his foreign business dealings, this oft-shunned area of the law suddenly garnered the attention of courts and scholars alike. Because of a clear “lack of precedent” on this matter, federal judges soon parsed historical records to determine the Clause’s …

Courting Bias: Effects Of Gender Socialization And Judges' Genders On Litigants And The Judiciary, Ellie Barmes

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Judging Judiciaries: How Sticky Defaults, Status Quo Bias, And The Sovereign Prerogative Influence The Perceived Legitimacy Of The New International Commercial Courts, S. I. Strong

Faculty Articles

Forum shopping is routinely criticized as contrary to procedural justice. However, recent years have seen an increasing number of jurisdictions engaged in the process of forum selling, in which countries actively seek to bring lucrative litigation business to their national judicial systems. One of the most common types of forum selling involves the creation of new international commercial courts designed to increase a nation’s competitiveness in the global litigation market.

Most studies of the new international commercial courts have focused on how procedural innovations adopted by different courts are likely to affect party choice. While useful, these analyses assume that …

Expertise, Ideology, And Dissent, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Jonathan R. Nash, Jason Rantanen

Faculty Articles

Part I sketches a theory of dissent, explaining how voting and opinion-writing behavior on a multi-member court, such as a federal court of appeals, is a function of both a judge's preferences, as well as costs, including the relational disruption that comes from disagreeing with colleagues.

Part II provides background on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as a survey of prior studies of decision-making on the court and explanations of those studies' limitations.

Part III describes our methodology, including the novel dataset we built for the purpose of this study.

Part IV conducts a …

Electing The Supreme Court, Dmitry Bam

FIU Law Review

There is a curious irony in how we select United States Supreme Court justices. According to basic constitutional theory, as well as the arguments made by many leading Framers at the time of the Founding, one of the Court’s primary roles is to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches when they exceed the constitutional limits imposed by the American people. Yet, we ask those very branches to jointly select the justices responsible for enforcing these limits, leaving the American people with only an indirect (if any) role in the process. Not surprisingly, the justices nominated by …

Pitching For Reform: Cangrejeros' Push To Level The Legal Playing Field By Challenging Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, Justin P. Chaljub

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

For over one-hundred years, professional baseball has enjoyed an antitrust exemption unique among American major sports leagues, stemming from Supreme Court decisions in Federal Baseball and its progeny. This exemption has significantly influenced the evolution and structure of Major League Baseball (MLB). Despite extensive criticism and challenges for judicial and legislative reform, the exemption persists today.

However, new efforts have emerged to comprehensively disrupt this framework. In 2023, Nostalgic Partners was brought and structured to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs anticipated they would lose at the lower court levels and garnered widespread support for the Court to grant a …

Alternatives To Delaware? Evaluating Corporate Law In Nevada, Texas, And Wyoming, Joseph Landau, Bailey Swartz, Anthony Rickey, Robert Ragazzo, Benjamin Edwards, George A. Mocsary

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

How To Evaluate Non-Majority Control: What History And Statutes Tell Us, J. Travis Laster

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Under American law, a person who controls a corporation is a fiduciary. Since the nineteenth century, American law has treated a person who wields a majority of the voting power as having control. For almost as long, American law has recognized that holding a majority of the voting power is sufficient but not necessary for control. During the past two decades in Delaware, two schools of thought co-existed regarding non-majority control. One school took a formal approach that (i) shifted from examining control over the business affairs of the enterprise to control over the board, (ii) discounted sources of influence …