Courts Commons^™

Prejudice Standards In Washington’S Appellate Courts, Andrew B. Van Winkle

Seattle University Law Review

When an appellate court finds an error to have occurred during a proceeding, the error is not yet subject to correction. In order to merit a remedy, the error must have been sufficiently prejudicial to the aggrieved party’s case. Drawing the line between correctable and non-correctable errors is not an easy task, for it often requires guessing at what was in the minds of jurors and trial judges. To cope with this task, courts have devised various rules and tests for deciding whether an error was likely prejudicial or not. These standards often go by names such as “harmless error,” …

Real-World Consequences For Online Actions: The Case For Expanding Employee Harassment Protection Via Employers’ Rights Of Action, Alexander Barnes

Seattle University Law Review

This Note argues for expanding employers’ access to legal remedies that allow them to recoup the costs of protecting their employees from swatting, doxing, and other online harassment arising from their employees’ professional activity. Part I provides a brief description and history of the online harassment problem and its potentially deadly dangers. Part II describes employers’ legal responsibility to take action to protect their employees from harassment aimed at their employees within the scope of their employment. Part III explores common legal remedies that are currently available to employers, using the state of Washington as an example. Part III also …

Foreseeability And Duty In Washington Negligence Law: Leaving The Road Less Traveled By, Leo Linder

Seattle University Law Review

Washington negligence law is a confusing labyrinth of foreseeability that not even Ariadne’s string could guide plaintiffs out of. Foreseeability is implicated in four distinct analyses, several of which overlap considerably. Doctrines that were once questions of law are now questions of fact, and vice versa. Something needs to change.

Washington has taken the novel approach of bifurcating the duty element into two parts—duty’s mere existence, which is a question of law for the court to determine; and duty’s scope, which is a question of fact handed off to the jury to determine. Foreseeability impacts both of these assessments, but …

Deepfakes In Court: How Judges Can Proactively Manage Alleged Ai-Generated Material In National Security Cases, Abhishek Dalal, Chongyang Gao, Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman, Daniel W. Linna Jr., Chiara Pulice, V. S. Subrahmanian, John Tunheim

Faculty Scholarship

Dall-E. ChatGPT GPT-4. Words that did not exist in the English lexicon just a few years ago are now commonplace. With the widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, specifically Generative AI, whether in the context of text, audio, video, imagery, or even combinations of these, it is inevitable that trials related to national security will involve evidentiary issues raised by Generative AI. We must confront two possibilities: first, that evidence presented is AI-generated and not real and, second, that other evidence is genuine but alleged to be fabricated. Technologies designed to detect AI-generated content have proven to be unreliable, …

False Accuracy In Criminal Trials: The Limits And Costs Of Cross Examination, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

According to the popular culture of criminal trials, skillful cross-examination can reveal the whole “truth” of what happened. In a climactic scene, defense counsel will expose a lying accuser, clear up the statements of a confused eyewitness, or surface the incentives and biases in testimony. Constitutional precedents, evidence theory, and trial procedures all reflect a similar aspiration—that cross-examination performs lie detection and thereby helps to produce accurate outcomes. Although conceptualized as a protection for defendants, cross-examination imposes some unexplored costs on them. Because it focuses on the physical presence of a witness, the current law of confrontation suggests that an …

The Downstream Consequences Of Transunion Llc V. Ramirez: Why 5 U.S.C. § 2954 Plaintiffs Have Article Iii Standing Consistent With Lower Courts’ Interpretation Of Transunion, Erin Mccoy

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court, in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, created additional standing hurdles by requiring plaintiffs to identify a common law historic-analogue when alleging a statutory harm. In doing so, the Court arguably limited informational standing—a unique Article III standing theory whereby plaintiffs may establish an injury for failure to receive information—because informational injuries did not exist at common law.

This Comment asks whether informational standing survives in a post-TransUnion universe, using 5 U.S.C. § 2954 and lower courts’ interpretation of TransUnion for guidance. The statute, § 2954, comes to light in a string of litigation involving the potential illegality …

Why Do Judges Compete For Cases?, Jonas Anderson, Paul R. Gugliuzza

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

It’s not just parties to litigation who forum shop. Sometimes judges forum sell by trying to attract cases to their courts. This judicial competition for cases has been documented in areas ranging from bankruptcy to antitrust to, most infamously, patent law. Despite the ubiquity of judicial case-seeking behavior, one important question remains unanswered: why? Why do judges—particularly federal district judges, who enjoy life tenure and are paid fixed salaries—seek out more work, especially in cases that can be quite complex?

This article answers that question by developing a first-of-its-kind model of judicial behavior in the context of court competition. The …

Moral Panic And The First Amendment, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Debates over free speech in the United States frequently see advocates of strong, broad protections at odds with those who argue that unfettered free speech tends to harm society's most vulnerable. Free speech advocates invoke the marketplace of ideas and argue that the antidote to false or harmful speech is more speech. In response, critics contend that speech itself causes harm and chills counter-speech effectively excluding marginalized groups, including women and LGBTQ people, from discourse altogether. These critics support limitations on robust free speech doctrine targeting speech that harms marginalized communities.

This Article identifies a significant wrinkle in this narrative: …

An Empirical Assessment Of The Indian Supreme Court’S Use Of Law Review Articles (1950-2020), Varun Garg, Apurva Singhi

National Law School of India Review

The Indian Supreme Court is considered one of the most powerful courts in the world. At a little over 70 years old, the Court has achieved a strong reputation as being one of the most activist courts in the world. At the same time, academic writing, especially law reviews, has exponentially grown in India and established its impact on the law. A question that has emerged is whether academic writing is losing touch with the practice of law. Some commentators have attributed the apparent decline in the courts’ use of legal scholarship to the increasingly theoretical and impractical nature of …

Extra-Territoriality And Solidarity, Vasuki Nesiah

National Law School of India Review

Bhupinder Chimni calls for a subaltern internationalism that stands in contrast to and challenges extraterritorial jurisdiction by imperial and capitalist forces. We have a productive instantiation of subaltern internationalism in the jurisprudence on jus standi at the International Court of Justice.1 A sovereign that is not the injured party may still legitimately represent injured peoples if the representation is grounded in a commitment to those peoples’ self- determination; the court’s admissibility jurisprudence has come to recognize this commitment as a legitimate erga omnes partes claim. Its most recent and spectacular expression was South Africa’s representation of Palestinians with a genocide …

The Wages Of Hitching Wagons, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article examines the challenges faced by states that align their constitutions with federal doctrine through the practice of "lockstepping"—adopting federal legal standards into state law. Lockstepping binds states to federal law, regardless of its trajectory. Part I traces the evolution of standing doctrine in both federal courts under Article III and Kentucky courts under its constitution. Part II presents an originalist critique of the federal injury-in-fact requirement, highlighting emerging efforts to abandon this requirement in federal courts. Part III discusses the dilemma states like Kentucky face, balancing constitutional interpretation, federalism, and legal stability.

The Emerging Constitutional Law Of Remote Criminal Justice, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The COVID-19 pandemic compelled courts to experiment with a novel mode of criminal process: conducting proceedings via video. The remote format helped protect public health during the pandemic, and its convenience has led many states to continue using it in certain circumstances. Yet questions about its desirability and constitutionality have lingered, and many are concerned that it undermines the justice and integrity of criminal proceedings. As the future of remote criminal justice is up for debate, it is important to assess to what degree it complies with fundamental constitutional principles. To that end, this Article offers a comprehensive analysis of …

Reimagining The Inclusive Jury, Anna Offit

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, everyday life for many Americans was upended. And yet, the jury trial remained viable — even vital. Faced with an era-defining public health disaster, courts innovated, embracing novel technologies and techniques to reimagine where and how justice might be made. But why did it take a pandemic to spur this kind of institutional creativity? Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, people who were otherwise eligible to participate as jurors were routinely — and uncontroversially — struck or exempted from service due to limited mobility, vision and hearing loss, and caregiving responsibilities. Recent experience …

Altered Stakes: Reimagining The Amount-In-Controversy Requirement, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

Which state-law cases should Congress allow into federal court? Congress's answer has always been "only the big ones." This article revisits the choice to limit diversity jurisdiction to higher-value cases and critically examines how Congress has approached setting the amount threshold. It surveys alternate ways Congress could use case value to sort which cases make it into the diversity docket. We explore lotteries, auctioning access to the highest bidder, setting an amount in controversy maximum rather than the current minimum, pegging the jurisdictional amount to the minimum wage or the cost of a hamburger, employing relative measures that use multiples …

A How-To Guide For When Your Favorite Meme Account Is Defamed: Involuntary Public Figures In Defamation, Privacy, And Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Law, Elizabeth Mcmullen

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The world we live in today has changed infinitely since the inception of our Constitution and early legal doctrine. Our Founding Fathers could never have predicted that we would one day live in a world where anyone living in any corner of the globe could garner millions of followers. Whether someone finds him or herself to be particularly proficient in writing Harry Potter fan fiction or to be the best creator of memes with an American Girl Doll focus, ordinary citizens could find themselves suddenly jolted out of quiet anonymity by one unexpectedly viral post. Despite years of Instagram micro-fame, …

Against "The Huddleston Test", Dora Klein

Faculty Articles

Many courts—mostly federal, but also some state courts—are misapplying the United States Supreme Court's decision in the 1988 case United States v. Huddleston. These courts have used a single paragraph of dicta from the Huddleston opinion to craft multipart checklist-type "tests" that displace the single requirement of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or corresponding state rules). This displacement risks the admission of other acts evidence without determining whether the evidence is relevant for a non-character purpose by means of inferences that do not involve character. These Huddleston tests thus undermine Rule 404(b)'s prohibition that other acts evidence …

Litigating Original Meaning From Heller To Rahimi: The Role Of Lawyering In The Confused Path Of Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Lawrence Rosenthal

American University Law Review

The Second Amendment is on a jurisprudential march. An individual right to “keep and bear arms” for purposes unrelated to militia or military service was not recognized until the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, applying what it took to be the original meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” found in the Second Amendment, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Subsequently, the Court, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, invalidated a statute requiring a permit to carry concealable firearms on a showing of particularized need. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, …

Judicial-Ish Efficiency: An Analysis Of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs In Delaware Superior Court, Jordan Hicks

Washington and Lee Law Review

Since the late twentieth century, federal and state jurisdictions across the United States have explored the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs to resolve legal disputes. ADR programs provide extrajudicial mechanisms through which parties can resolve their disputes without the delay and expense of a traditional judicial proceeding. Courts and practitioners alike have lauded ADR programs. For litigators, ADR programs are a way to deliver outcomes to clients quickly and efficiently. For courts, ADR programs are a way to remove cases from overcrowded dockets.

While ADR is generally considered to be speedier and more cost-efficient than a trial, little …

Delegation Run Amok, George A. Bermann

Faculty Scholarship

The proper allocation of authority between courts and arbitral tribunals over the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate has long occupied a central place in United States arbitration law, domestic and international alike. From US Supreme Court case law over the years, there has emerged a reasonably well-understood distinction between those issues of enforceability that a court will address if asked by a party to do so and those that it will not. Fundamental to the Court’s jurisprudence is a recognition that some enforceability issues — “gateway issues” — so seriously implicate the consent of parties to arbitrate their disputes that …

Rebalancing Judicial Immunity For Civil Rights Actions, Bailey D. Barnes

Faculty Publications

Sterilization for shorter jail sentences. Vasectomies and birth control implants for freedom. In 2017, a criminal court judge in rural Tennessee made this offer to people incarcerated through sentences issued by his court. When litigators sought monetary damages and to enjoin the practice, and the local media exposed the scheme, the judge begrudgingly rescinded the order while expressing surprise that it was controversial. The Board of Judicial Conduct issued a letter of reprimand to the judge. Meanwhile, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee summarily dismissed the constitutional tort claims against the judge based on absolute …