Courts Commons^™

The Enduring Relevance Of Congress Despite The Court's Shift To “Ordinary Reader” Statutory Interpretation, Abbe R. Gluck, Laila M. Robbins

Journal of Law and Policy

Has Congress become irrelevant to statutory interpretation? The dominant theoretical and doctrinal paradigm in American statutory interpretation has always been the conversation between Congress and the courts. Today, however, the Court’s new, second-generation textualists claim they have left Congress behind. They argue they have changed textualism’s perspective, from an “insider” perspective focused on Congress’s textual choices, to an “outsider” perspective based on how “ordinary people” read statutes. The Court’s self-professed shift away from a legiscentric approach, if true, would be a seismic shift in the conception of the judicial role. Whereas judges and scholars—including first-generation textualists—had for a century focused …

The Broad Church Of Modern Textualism, Nicole Steitz, Brian G. Slocum, Kevin Tobia

Journal of Law and Policy

Nearly thirty years ago, Justice Scalia’s Tanner lectures branded Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) as the anti-textualist archetype, a decision trumping the text’s plain meaning with a suspect judicial investigation of the law’s purpose or spirit. And so Holy Trinity seemed, until Gales and Solan’s groundbreaking empirical study supported an alternative reading of the key statutory term (“labor or service”) that would avoid this conflict between text and purpose. Taking inspiration from Gales and Solan, we reconsider Holy Trinity using the precepts of modern textualism, with its increased emphasis on context, pragmatics, anti-literalism, legal meaning, holistic meaning, non-compositionality, …

The Pet Fish Canon, William N. Eskridge Jr.

Journal of Law and Policy

Inspired by the work of the late Professor Larry Solan, this article proposes that judges recognize as one of the textualist canons of statutory construction a “pet fish” canon. Such a canon would posit that when an ordinary reader would understand two or more words to yield a meaning that is different than the sum of the two words defined separately, the statutory interpreter should not disaggregate them. The Roberts Court has already followed such a linguistic precept in some statutory cases, and this article proposes that the Court recognize this as a canon considered at least as seriously as …

Grammar & Syntax Arguments On The Roberts Court, Anita S. Krishnakumar

Journal of Law and Policy

In his excellent book, The Language of Judges, Professor Solan demonstrates how judges use grammatical or linguistic arguments to avoid acknowledging statutory ambiguity—and how they often get the grammar or linguistics wrong. Since his book was published, textualism has become the dominant interpretive approach on the U.S. Supreme Court—and we have seen increasingly prominent battles involving grammatical devices and rules. This comment takes Professor Solan’s analysis as a jumping off point to evaluate how grammar and linguistic arguments are employed on the modern Supreme Court, in the age of textualism. The comment offers a brief empirical and doctrinal assessment of …

Law And Equity On Appeal, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

Most lawyers know that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merged the divergent trial procedures of the common law and of equity, but fewer are familiar with the development of federal appellate procedure. Here too there is a story of the merger of two distinct systems. At common law, a reviewing court examined the record for errors of law after the final trial judgment. In the equity tradition, an appeal was a rehearing of the law and the facts that aimed at achieving justice and did not need to await a final judgment. Unlike the story of federal trial procedure, …

Roger Williams University 2024 President's Report: A Message From President Miaoulis, Roger Williams University

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

How Speech-Language Pathologists Can Collaborate With A Well-Meaning Judiciary To Improve Jury Instructions, Lillian N. Stiegler, Rebecca L. Parker

Journal of Interprofessional Practice and Collaboration

Abstract

Purpose: Many U.S. adults are called upon to fulfill civic responsibilities through jury duty. Jury participation is a responsibility, but it is also a privilege that ensures the balance of power between government and citizens. Problems arise when jury instructions are presented using complex language that challenges the comprehension of laypersons with and without language and literacy differences, negatively influencing the juror’s participation experience and trial outcomes. In spite of plain language mandates and clear findings regarding the average literacy abilities of U.S. adults, much of the legal community persists in the use of difficult jury instructions.

Method: Academic …

Ethical Considerations In Qualitative Research After Dobbs, Sabrina Singh

Pace Law Review

The verdict in the Dobbs case will undoubtedly have an impact on the United States research enterprise for years to come. Since the landmark decision was handed down by the high court, researchers have warned of the impacts that the decision will have on clinical research. However, there is less discussion about how qualitative researchers will be impacted by this decision. Oftentimes, qualitative researchers are asking their participants to be vulnerable and to let researchers be privy to intimate and/or confidential details about their lives. In exchange for such access, researchers need to ensure the protection of their participants and …

The Alabama Embryo Decision In Ethics, Law, And Politics, I. Glenn Cohen

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are Embryos Or Fetuses Brain Dead? Implications For The Abortion Debate, Greer Donley

Pace Law Review

Most state abortion definitions exclude the removal of a dead fetus, attempting to distinguish miscarriage and abortion care. But what does “dead” mean at the earliest stages of potential life? There is a consensus at the end of life that death not only encompasses the cessation of cardiac activity, but also brain death. This symposium essay considers whether life can only begin with the emergence of brain life and if so, how that might impact the abortion debate. The most rudimentary brain waves cannot be detected in an embryo before roughly the eighth week of pregnancy; the capacity for feeling …

The Good Officer: President Trump, General Milley, And The “Necessity” Of Constitutional Fidelity, John C. Dehn

Brooklyn Law Review

Actions taken by General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prevent an abuse of presidential power during the waning days of the Trump administration prompted a range of reactions and concerns. This Article leverages these events to explore the circumstances under which a member of the armed forces or senior executive branch official may have a moral or legal right or duty to disobey presidential orders or authorizations that entail a clear violation of the Constitution or federal laws, or that abuse lawful authorities in ways that would subvert the Constitution’s text or vital …

The Decline Of Representation Reinforcement In The Supreme Court: Increasing Deference To The Political Process, Jonathan L. Entin

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court has often interpreted the Constitution with an eye toward ameliorating failures of the political process. Over the past two decades, however, the Court has retreated from that concern with representation reinforcement. This article examines decisions upholding restrictive voter identification laws, making it more difficult to prove violations of the Voting Rights Act, and preventing federal courts from hearing claims of partisan gerrymandering. Some decisions that seem sympathetic to failures of the political process will not really promote representation reinforcement, and the Court’s most recent cases further reinforce the Court’s skepticism of claims of failures of the political …

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

2024 Esther Clark Moot Court Competition 10-28-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professors William Araiza, Jeffrey Lubbers, And Peter M. Shane As Amici Curiae In Support Of Defendantappellant Federal Trade Commission, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Amici are law professors who teach and write in the fields of administrative law and statutory interpretation. Amicus William Araiza is the Stanley A. August Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. Amicus Jeffrey Lubbers is Professor of Practice in Administrative Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Amicus Peter M. Shane is the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Emeritus at Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law. As leading administrative law scholars, amici have a strong interest in the sound development of administrative law in the federal courts, and are submitting this …

Join Us For A Conversation With Judge Matthew Solomson: Building A Legal Career, Rising To The Bench, And Defending American Values, Cardozo Federalist Society, Matthew H. Solomson

2024–2025 Flyers

No abstract provided.

Egbert V. Boule And The Dwindling Bivens Doctrine, Luke Smith

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Law & Economics Working Papers

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using "explicit," "clear," and "unambiguous" statements - or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using "legally magic" words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than …

Criminal Juror Challenges And Csli: A Rule 16 Revision To Maintain Impartial Juries, Ivy Kaplan

Northwestern University Law Review

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants “the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State.” Voir dire, the procedure during which the prosecution and the defense may challenge prospective jurors for cause or exercise peremptory challenges, purports to uphold this right. When the prosecution has access to cellular geolocation data on prospective jurors that the defense lacks, however, it may jeopardize the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

This Note proposes a solution to that problem in the form of an addition to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. …

Accommodating Incompetency In Immigration Court, Elizabeth Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

In criminal law, an individual must be deemed competent to stand trial, yet our immigration courts routinely order the deportation of incompetent noncitizens. A removal proceeding against a noncitizen—where an outcome of deportation often risks life-threatening harm—continues apace even if the noncitizen has been deemed incompetent by the immigration judge. In place of halting proceedings, the immigration judge imposes “safeguards” pursuant to a provision of the immigration code that neither defines nor explains the term. In practice, judges’ application of the term “safeguards” is often absurd. The implications of continuing a proceeding against a noncitizen with a disability affecting competency …