Judges Commons^™

Employment Law: Governance And Guardrails: Artificial Intelligence And Low-Wage Workers, Seema N. Patel

The Judges' Book

“It’s like magic.” In August 2014, the New York Times reported on how Kronos scheduling software—which uses which uses real-time inputs, including weather forecasts, historical sales data, and nearby events, to predict customer traffic—had created a “chronic crisis over the clock” for Starbucks’s 130,000 baristas. For one barista, Jannette Navarro, the Kronos app controlled everything from how much sleep her four-year-old son might get to what groceries she could afford that month. The software was installed directly onto workers’ personal phones without consultation, negotiation, or notice. What seemed “like magic” to a Kronos executive wreaked havoc on workers’ lives.

A …

Evidence: The Limits Of Limiting Forensic Firearm-Identification Testimony, David L. Faigman

The Judges' Book

For more than a century, firearm examiners have testified in unequivocal terms that they can match bullets or cartridge cases to a specific firearm, often asserting identification “to the practical exclusion of all other firearms.” These claims were widely accepted in courts and rarely subjected to empirical validation.

Over the past two decades, however, they have come under increasing scrutiny from scientists, legal scholars, and government bodies. In particular, scientific reviews of the research basis for firearms and toolmark identification have found that the data do not support such claims of “individualization.” Examiners can identify the type or class of …

Health Law: Incremental Innovation, George Horvath

The Judges' Book

Transformative medical innovations—the ones that disrupt the world—command the lion’s share of attention. But the vast majority of innovations are incremental—the result of small modifications made to existing products. The process of incremental innovation tends to be highly iterative, with products being modified again and again. Over time, dozens or hundreds of small changes can accumulate to the point where contemporary technology bears little resemblance to the technology of years or decades before.

In the field of medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), incremental innovation accounts for roughly 99% of new devices. On the upside, incremental …

Ip Law: Ai And Cracks In The Foundation Of Ip, Robin C. Feldman

The Judges' Book

Our implicit image of progress, and the standards we use to calibrate the value of human contributions to that progress, are quietly at risk from the onslaught of AI. AI has the potential to significantly shrink the pool of information and creative work protected by IP, particularly shrinking the protectable space for the work of human contributors.

The changes wrought by AI raise existential questions for society’s conception of human invention. I use the term “existential” here not in the modern sense of threatening something’s existence, but rather in the broad sense of philosophical existentialism, as being concerned with exploring …

Court Review: Journal Of The American Judges Association, Vol. 62, No. 1, Eve M. Brank, David J. Dreyer, Reba Ann Page, Ana Cienfuegos-Silvera

Court Review: Journal of the American Judges Association

Contents

Creating “Buy-in” for Juvenile Restorative Justice Programs: Lessons from Nebraska’s Community Mediation Centers, Kristen M. Blankley, Lisa M. PytlikZillig, and Ashley M. Votruba

Consensus and Conflict Over Context: Select Criminal Law and Procedure Cases from the Supreme Court’s 2024-25 Term, Eve Brensike Primus and Elena Schultz

In the Shadow of Trauma: Opportunities and Obstacles of Restorative Justice with Young People Who Offend, William R. Wood

Restorative Transitional Justice: The Judicial Role in Colombia’s Peace Tribunal, Gabriel Rojas-Andrade

Editor’s Note: Restorative Justoce: Repairing Harm, Rebuilding Community, Eve Brank

Thoughts from Canada: Restorative Justice Through Prohibition on Arrest, Wayne K. Gorman …

Does Textualism Constrain Supreme Court Justices?, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

Faculty Scholarship

A principal justification for textualism is the constraint hypothesis. Conservative Justices and leading textualist scholars contend that—in stark contrast to reliance on legislative history—focus on the ordinary meaning of enacted text leaves little room for the Justices to be policy-oriented or ideological in their interpretations. This Article represents the first systematic study probing the validity of the constraint hypothesis, one that employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The Article examines the Justices’ reliance on interpretive resources in over 660 statutory decisions in the field of labor and employment, decided by the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and the Roberts Court—during …

Creation And The Republican Revival, William M. Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Gordon Wood's classic book Creation of the American Republic has long influenced legal thought and originalist scholarship in particular. It played a central role in the Republican Revival movement, an effort by leading scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Frank Michelman to recover a progressive originalism at the same time as conservative originalism was starting to shape constitutional jurisprudence. But, while the Republican Revival nominally relied on Wood, it misread central elements of his book - his concept of virtue and his belief that republicanism had largely been displaced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

The time …

Should Judicial Opinions Be Read Like Statutes?, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

Should judicial opinions be interpreted with an eye to their purpose, context, or the intent of their authors, or should interpreters focus on the ordinary meaning of the text? Opinions present the same sorts of interpretive puzzles as other legal texts, and yet they have been omitted from the debates over interpretive methodology that dominate the fields of constitutional and statutory interpretation. The omission is no accident: the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly—and with increasing frequency in recent years—that judicial opinions are not to be read like statutes. Yet neither courts nor commentators have explained why the principles that ground …

Judicial Review Of Agency Discretion, Lisa S. Bressman, Daniel T. Deacon, Glen Staszewski

Book Chapters

Agencies exercise discretion when they make a choice among alternatives that are legally available to them. Such choices come in many different forms. An agency may grant a permit, deny it, or grant it with conditions. It may pro­mulgate a rule that sets specified limits on pollution, and it may or may not afford transition relief to existing sources. Or it may levy a fine against an indi­vidual and decide how high that fine should. be. To the extent the agency is afforded options in making these determinations, it is exercising discretion. This chapter concerns judicial review of agencies' discretionary …

Immigration Adjudication, Judicial Review, And The Uneven Incorporation Of Administrative Law Norms, John Harland Giammatteo

Journal Articles

This article examines the interaction between immigration law and administrative law. Scholars and courts regularly treat immigration as outside of, or exceptional to, the normal operation of administrative law and its norms of judicial review. Yet in the past decade, the Roberts Court has radically reshaped administrative law. This broader administrative law project has largely emphasized the primacy of the federal courts and judicial review, enlarging the putative rights of regulated parties, at the cost of agency power. Within that project, immigration adjudication is a frequent conversation partner. Immigration adjudication is used to undermine the administrative state’s claim to policymaking …

Federal Judicial Misconduct: The Need For Higher Standards On Lower Courts, Nino C. Monea

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Georgia's Best Friend, Harold D. Melton

Mercer Law Review

“Chief Justice Michael Boggs is one of my very best friends in life,” say people all over the great State of Georgia, including me. Rare is the man who has such a clear sense of purpose and who derives so much joy in being a true friend to the people around him. And by that, I refer to his tight-knit inner circle and the broader community at large: his wife, his immediate family, his extended family, his local community, his legal community, and also the people who make Georgia their home.

A Conversation With Judge Stephanos Bibas, Stephanos Bibas, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

On Friday, March 28th, 2025, the Catholic University Law Review hosted its annual spring symposium: Traditional Judicial Power & Doctrinal Development, which included a conversation between Judge Stephanos Bibas and Professor Kevin C. Walsh. The conversation covered topics such as standing, severability, and preliminary injunctions. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered.

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

Lost In Translation: How The Criminal Justice System Fails Individuals With Autism, J.Mckenna Harris

Master of Arts in Human Services

Adults with autism spectrum disorder face significant challenges throughout the criminal justice system, from initial police contact through incarceration. This capstone examined how the core features of autism, literal language processing, difficulty reading social cues, sensory sensitivities, and executive function deficits, create vulnerabilities that legal professionals frequently misunderstand. The literature review revealed a consistent pattern: behaviors rooted in autism are routinely misinterpreted as signs of guilt, defiance, or lack of remorse. During interrogations, individuals with autism are highly susceptible to false confessions because they struggle with abstract legal language, tend to comply with authority figures, and cannot predict the consequences …

Rekonstruksi Mekanisme Seleksi Hakim Konstitusi Di Indonesia, Indah Sri Pangestu, Dwi Yuliani, Hertaty Dorothy Dewi Siburian

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

The mechanism for selection and election of constitutional judges in Indonesia currently still shows a diversity of procedures in each proposing institution, namely the Supreme Court, DPR and President. The process implemented does not fully reflect the principles of transparency, participation, objectivity and accountability as mandated in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the procedures for selection and selection of constitutional judges to ensure a more professional system and integrity. One of the solutions offered is the establishment of an independent institution responsible for the selection and recruitment of constitutional judges with a system …

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, …

Equality In Sentencing Mitigation, John B. Meixner Jr.

Fordham Law Review

As guilty-plea rates have skyrocketed, sentencing has become an increasingly important part of criminal procedure. With judges often wielding significant discretion at sentencing, a key question is how judges interpret mitigation: evidence about the defendant’s background or the case that supports a reduced sentence. Past empirical research—both experimental and in real-world cases—indicates that mitigation plays an important role in determining sentences. But does mitigation help everyone, or does it reinforce inequalities that frequently infect other areas of criminal procedure? Do low-income Black defendants with appointed counsel benefit from sentencing mitigation as much as wealthier White defendants with private attorneys? Do …

Judge Platt Potter: Politics And Principle In Interbranch Conflict, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

During the previous Congress, some commentators called on the Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats and chaired by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, to demand the testimony of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over allegations of ethical breaches, securing their presence by subpoena if necessary. The Committee did not subpoena the Justices, with Durbin citing the likely lack of sufficient votes and worrying that the Senate would not be able to enforce the subpoenas anyway. During the same Congress, Durbin asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify about judicial ethics, an invitation that Roberts declined.

These incidents …