Judges Commons^™

“Shipping” Away The Captive Audience Meeting, Nathan Kakalec

Fordham Law Review

On November 14, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned seventy-six years of labor law precedent by banning captive audience meetings in Amazon.com Services LLC. Captive audience meetings, mandatory meetings where employers discuss unionization with their employees, were a powerful anti-union tool used by employers to coerce their employees into rejecting unionization. The NLRB argues that captive audience meetings are inconsistent with § 7 and § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers reject the NLRB’s assertion and contend that banning captive audience meetings infringes on their First Amendment right to communicate their views on unionization. …

Blunting The “Tools At Hand”: Recent Developments In Delaware Books-And-Records Demand Law, Daniel Meyer

University of Miami Business Law Review

In recent years, and despite their heeding the guidance of Delaware courts, stockholders’ use of the statutory books-and-records investigation mechanism under Delaware Code Title 8, Section 220 (“Section 220”) has been much maligned, with commentators blaming Section 220 actions for straining judicial resources and causing companies unnecessary costs and burdens. Moreover, Delaware’s legislature and courts have taken steps to curb stockholders’ inspection rights, blunting a crucial tool needed to develop allegations in meritorious cases so that stockholders can bring cases that survive motions to dismiss and continue into plenary discovery.

Instead of blindly accepting a narrative regarding a Section 220 …

A New Equal Protection And Due Process Clause: Pushing Back On The Eleventh Circuit’S Error In Corbitt, Alberto Bufalino

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Gender-Affirming Care, Justin J. Soulas

Theses and Dissertations

As of recent, twenty-four states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care, restricting minors from accessing medically necessary treatment. Existing scholarship has begun to explore the profound impact of these bans on transgender youth, their parents or guardians, and the medical professionals who support them. However, the body of literature on this rapidly evolving issue remains limited. This thesis aims to fill that gap by offering a legal defense of gender-affirming care, grounded in judicial precedent. It argues that parental rights to make medical decisions for their children—recognized in constitutional jurisprudence—extend to decisions involving gender-affirming treatment. Additionally, it draws on anti-discrimination …

Attitudes On Solitary Confinement, Emily Dewey

Undergraduate Theses

Solitary confinement is widespread and recognized as harmful in society. However, it is not as researched as other controversial issues, including immigration, gun control, abortion, etc. Due to this, it is hard to gauge how supportive the public is or isn't of related practices. In a general sense, public support has been established by legislators crafting policy, and by extension United States Supreme Court decision making. This is particularly crucial in discussions on interpretations of the 8th Amendment/ cruel and unusual punishment. Existing case law, such as Peoples V. Fischer, found that solitary confinement was arbitrary and needed reform, including …

Do Bankruptcy Judges Belong In Chambers? Rethinking Inherent Civil Contempt Power In Bankruptcy, Abigail B. Willie

Brooklyn Law Review

In recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized limitations on the adjudicatory authority of the bankruptcy judge in certain contexts. In the face of this seeming erosion in the previously presumed power of the bankruptcy judge, the time is ripe to consider areas in which a bankruptcy judge’s adjudicatory authority may be further challenged. Inherent civil contempt power is one such area. Contempt power in the bankruptcy context has been murky since the creation of the non-Article III bankruptcy court in 1978. While today, courts generally agree that bankruptcy judges possess (at least some) inherent civil …

Conflicting Canons Of Construction: The Aftermath In Veterans’ Law, Carlissa R. Carson

Brooklyn Law Review

Until June 28, 2024, when the United States Supreme Court overturned decades of administrative law precedent, veterans' law judges, veterans, and practitioners alike would gather in the administrative law arena to watch an unpredictable battle: Chevron vs. Gardner. The outcome of bouts between these heavyweights was as unexpected as the plot twist in an M. Night Shyamalan film. As a result, our nation’s veterans were defeated. Federal courts tended to apply either Chevron (agency deference) or Gardner (veteran friendliness) and courts rarely mentioned both canons of construction in the same opinion. It was difficult to predict which canon of construction …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

Hindsight Is 20/20: Epilepsy Is Not One-Size-Fits-All, Raika Kim

Northwestern University Law Review

For many, epilepsy is one of the first conditions that come to mind when thinking of a disability, and for good reason: over 50 million people in the world live with epilepsy. Yet misunderstandings about epilepsy have perpetuated social stigma surrounding the disability for centuries. Ableist beliefs led to the passage of laws in the 1900s condoning—and in some cases, requiring—sterilization of individuals with epilepsy and restriction of their right to marry. Even today, state driving laws, justified as promoting public safety, categorically prevent anyone diagnosed with epilepsy from driving unless they are seizure free for an arbitrary, nonuniform period …

Modalities, Anti-Modalities, And The Social Psychology Of Persuasive Constitutional Argument, Asma T. Uddin

Catholic University Law Review

Constitutional argumentation traditionally relies on modalities such as text, history, doctrine, and structure. However, the exclusion of certain “anti-modalities”—such as policy arguments, fundamentalist views, and emotional appeals—can create a “resonance gap” between legal reasoning and public understanding. This paper explores how social science insights, particularly from cultural cognition theory (CCT) and moral foundations theory (MFT), can help bridge this gap by guiding the strategic incorporation of pathos and moral intuitions into constitutional arguments. Techniques such as self-affirmation, expressive overdetermination, and aporetic reasoning can make opinions more persuasive and inclusive without compromising legal integrity. The paper examines how these strategies can …

The Law Of Disqualification And Problems With The Supreme Court Code Of Conduct, Donald K. Sherman, Marco A. White, Virginia Canter

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

In this Article, we analyze the federal disqualification statute applicable to federal judges, magistrates, and Justices of the Supreme Court as compared to the disqualification provisions of the United States Supreme Court Code of Conduct and detail the ways in which the standards contained within the Code are contrary to law and history. To provide proper context, we examine the history, case law, and statutory framework that have created the current standards of judicial disqualification for all Article III judges and Justices. We demonstrate that the Court is bound to apply disqualification procedures in accordance with the United States Constitution, …

Prentiss Mellen, Maine's First Chief Justice: A Legal Biography, Ellyn C. Ballou

Maine Law Review

It is in the bosoms of his contemporaries of the profession, and of his clients and personal friends, that the memory of the lawyer is embalmed . . . . [Chief Justice Mellen's] life furnishes a striking illustration of the justness of the preceding remarks, since it was that of one almost exclusively conversant with the active practice of the law. Thus wrote Simon Greenleaf shortly after Prentiss Mellen's death. Greenleaf, perhaps due to the modesty of one in a similar position, was only partially correct. True, few today, even in the legal profession, recognize the name of Maine's first …

Chief Justice Dufresne: An Appreciation, Charles A. Pomeroy

Maine Law Review

To those of us who worked with him almost daily, the years of Armand Dufresne's stewardship will be best remembered as the years during which the Justices of the Supreme Court grew closer together, both in their professional and social relations, and in the respect and admiration each held for the other and all held for the Chief Justice. I am confident I express the sentiment of my colleagues when I say the Dufresne years were among the happiest years of the Court family, largely because of the leadership Chief Justice Dufresne provided US.

Three Distinguished Judges To Hear Final Arguments In Sherman Minton Moot Court Competition, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

A panel of three distinguished judges will hear final arguments in the Indiana University Maurer School of Law’s Sherman Minton Moot Court Competition on Friday, April 4.

The Hon. Diane S. Sykes, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; the Hon. Richard L. Young, Senior Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana; and the Hon. Alison Conlon, Judge on the Circuit Court of Cook County (Ill.) will hear arguments in the DeLaney Moot Court Room beginning at 5 p.m.

The jurists will also meet with students before the event.

“Appeals On Wheels” Brings Court Of Appeals Of Indiana To Bloomington, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

The Court of Appeals of Indiana will hold oral arguments at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law on Thursday, April 3 inside Baier Hall.

The event is part of the court’s Appeals on Wheels series and is open to the public. Arguments begin at 1:45 p.m. and are expected to conclude around 2:45 p.m.

“The Appeals on Wheels program is the best trust-building tool we have as a judiciary,” said Anne Fuchs, the Court’s director of communications. “The court brings real oral arguments to communities around the state so the public can understand how the judiciary really works. We …

Scientific Educations Among U.S. Judges, Christa Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Should more judges have technical and scientific educations than are currently prevalent in the federal judiciary? This empirical study of the educational background of federal judges reports the undergraduate and graduate majors of active U.S. federal Article III judges. Information on the subject area of study is largely not publicly available, especially for judges appointed decades ago. This is the first and only publicly available research study of the subject areas of study of U.S. judges, collected via phone and email surveys to U.S. judges. The results of this study show that only 7.35% offederal judges have majors in science …

Her Fundamentals: Justice Abella And Section 2(B) Of The Charter, Jamie Cameron

Articles & Book Chapters

Justice Abella’s legendary aspirations for human rights all but defined her jurisprudence, and under s,2 she earned praise elsewhere for her opinions on religious freedom (s.2(a) of the Charter) and the right to strike under s.2(d)’s guarantee of associational freedom. Apart from Doré v. Barreau de Québec, her s.2(b) jurisprudence on freedom of expression has attracted less scholarly attention. This article highlights Justice Abella’s leadership under s.2(b) in protecting expressive freedom’s democratic values, developing a more robust form of proportionality balancing under s.1, and advocating for doctrinal recognition of freedom of the press and media as an independent …

The Wrongly Read Right: Insurrection And The Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms, Aman Mcleod, Jacob M. Jones

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Several judges and scholars have interpreted the Second Amendment as creating a right to bear arms to facilitate armed resistance against the government whenever it threatens to impose tyranny. These arguments have been made in books, scholarly articles, and court decisions. Many of the proponents of the pro-armed insurrection interpretation of the Second Amendment root this point of view in the history of the right to bear arms in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This Article argues that the Second Amendment does not create a right to bear arms to resist government authority because such a right is inconsistent with several …

Put Me In, Coach: Constitutional Concerns Of Judicial Activism And Legislating From The Bench, Jacob M. Elliott

Senior Honors Theses

Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.

Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate …