Judges Commons^™

Barriers To Entry And Justice Ginsburg’S Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Lisa Kern Griffin

Faculty Scholarship

In her twenty plus years on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has issued momentous decisions and significant dissents concerning constitutional guarantees of equality. She is best known for her leadership – as an advocate, scholar, judge, and justice – on issues of gender discrimination. Although one might expect related commitments to civil liberties to shape cases concerning the criminal justice process, Justice Ginsburg’s mark on constitutional criminal procedure appears comparatively faint. Her contributions have been subtle, and her cautious opinions at first seem disconnected from the clear principles established in the discrimination cases.

Stare Decisis In The Second-Best World, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

If judges disagree about the proper interpretation of the law, can they find common ground in the treatment of precedent? The doctrine of stare decisis weighs the value of legal continuity against the value of legal accuracy. But that analysis is complicated by pervasive disputes over the implications of legal error. Likewise, the scope of a precedent's impact in future cases depends on underlying assumptions about the ends and means of legal interpretation. When those assumptions vary among judges, so too will applications of stare decisis. For stare decisis to promote the continuity and impersonality of law, it requires an …

The Hughes Court Docket Books: The Early Terms, 1929-1933, Barry Cushman

Journal Articles

For many years, the docket books kept by a number of the Hughes Court Justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Yet the existence of these docket books was not widely known, and access to them was highly restricted. In April of 2014, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers a report and analysis based on a review of all of the docket books that the Curator’s Office holds for the early Hughes Court, comprising the 1929-1933 Terms. Only one of …

Three Things: A Tribute To Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold, Nicole Stelle Garnett

Journal Articles

On February 20, 2015, the Arkansas Bar Association hosted a tribute to Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold (8th Cir., retired). I had the privilege of clerking for Judge Arnold in 1995-96 and the great honor of being asked to speak about the Judge at the event. Greenbag graciously agreed to publish my remarks.

‪Measuring The Effects Of Legal Precedent In Us Federal Courts‬, Jens Frankenreiter, Daniel L. Chen, Susan Yeh

Scholarship@WashULaw

Using data for 2000-2004, our results suggest that new precedent has a strong effect on district court judges’ decision standards. Results are stronger when we focus on decisions in the same area of law. Extending the data to 2012, our results get blurred or even change direction.

Understanding The Judicial Conference Committee On International Judicial Relations, Sam F. Halabi, Nanette K. Laughrey

Faculty Publications

Since 1993, the Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations has coordinated outreach and exchange activities of the federal judiciary in support of rule-of-law initiatives. While the Federal Judicial Center has endeavored to publicize the Committee’s work, and members of the Committee have on occasion written and spoken about their work for the Committee, the scholarly treatment of the Committee remains sparse. What discussion does exist in the academic literature tends to depict the Committee in one of two ways. First, the Committee formed in response to the emergence of newly independent states after the 1991 Soviet collapse. Those states …

Justice As A Rounding Error?: Evidence Of Subconscious Bias In Second-Degree Murder Sentences In Canada, Craig E. Jones, Micah B. Rankin

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

There are few areas of law that grant judges as much discretion as the sentencing of criminal offenders. This discretion necessarily leads to concerns about the influence of biases, including those that result from subconscious processes associated with human cognition; that is to say, heuristics. In this article, the authors explore one heuristic—number preference—through an examination of all reported second degree murder parole ineligibility decisions between 1990 and 2012. Number preference leads individuals to predictably round off measurements to certain favoured numbers. The authors identify a tendency for parole ineligibility decisions to cluster around even numbers and multiples of five, …

God, Civic Virtue, And The American Way: Reconstructing Engel, Corinna Barrett Lain

Law Faculty Publications

If ever a decision embodied the heroic, counter majoritarian function we romantically ascribe to judicial review, it was the 1962 decision that struck down school prayer-Engel v. Vitale. Engel provoked more outrage, more congres- sionalattemptsto overturnit, andmoreattackson theJusticesthanperhapsany other decision in Supreme Court history. Indeed, Engel's counter majoritarian narrative is so strong that scholars have largely assumed that the historical record supports our romanticized conception of the case.Itdoesnot. Usingprimary source materials, this Article reconstructs the story of Engel, then explores the implicationsof this reconstructednarrative. Engel is not the countermajoritarian case it seems, but recognizing that allows us to see Engel …

Writing Reasoned Decisions And Opinions: A Guide For Novice, Experienced, And Foreign Judges, S. I. Strong

Journal of Dispute Resolution

Producing well-written reasoned judgments (a term that is used herein to denote both trial court decisions and appellate opinions) is the goal of all members of the bench. Badly written rulings can have significant legal consequences for both the parties, who may incur costs as a result of a need to appeal a poorly worded decision or opinion, and society as a whole, since a poorly drafted precedent may drive the law in an unanticipated and unfortunate direction or lead to increased litigation as individuals attempt to define the parameters of an ambiguous new ruling. As a result, helping judges …

From Commitment To Compliance: Enforceability Of Remedial Orders Of African Human Rights Bodies, Roger-Claude Liwanga

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Over the last seven decades, there has been a global proliferation of international and regional human rights tribunals. But with no coercive power to enforce their judgments, these international tribunals rely either on the good faith of the State parties or on the political process for the implementation of their remedial orders. This nonjudicial approach to enforcement has showed its limits, as most State parties are noncompliant with international judgments to the detriment of human rights victims. This article recommends a new approach involving the judicialization of the post-adjudicative stage of international proceedings as an avenue to increase the enforceability …

Why Choose? A Response To Rachlinski, Wistrich & Guthrie, Terry A. Maroney

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In "Heart Versus Head," Rachlinski, Guthrie, and Wistrich present experimental findings suggesting that judges sometimes rule on the basis of emotion rather than reason. Though there is much of value in their findings, they have presented a false choice. The experiments do offer strong evidence that judges' decisions can be influenced by the "affect heuristic," insofar as they show that prompting generalized feelings of good/bad and like/dislike can sway legal rulings that ought to be answered entirely on traditionally legalistic grounds. However, the experiments do not speak more broadly to the influence of judicial emotion, which is a far more …

Mitigating Foul Blows, Mary Bowman

Faculty Articles

For nearly eighty years, courts have offered stirring rhetoric about how prosecutors must not strike foul blows in pursuit of convictions. Yet while appellate courts are often quick to condemn prosecutorial trial misconduct, they rarely provide any meaningful remedy. Instead, courts routinely affirm convictions, relying on defense counsel's failure to object or concluding that the misconduct was merely harmless error. Jerome Frank summed up the consequences of this dichotomy best when he noted that the courts' attitude of helpless piety in prosecutorial misconduct cases breeds a deplorably cynical attitude toward the judiciary. Cognitive bias research illuminates the reasons for, and …

Marriage Equality Comes To Wisconsin, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Marriage equality has swept America. Numerous federal judges, including Western District of Wisconsin Judge Barbara Crabb, have invalidated state proscriptions on same-sex marriage. This paper scrutinizes U.S. litigation, Crabb’s opinion, Seventh Circuit affirmance, and Supreme Court resolution. Finding that Wisconsin shows how to efficaciously institute full marriage equality, even as other states have not, the piece affords future suggestions.

The Future Of Sex Offense Courts: How Expanding Specialized Sex Offense Courts Can Help Reduce Recidivism And Improve Victim Reporting, Catharine Richmond, Melissa Richmond

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

Specialty sex offense courts are a nascent judicial innovation that seek to improve general public safety by reducing recidivism. Decreased recidivism results from swifter, personalized, experienced, and consistent judicial action that encourages sex offenders to take more responsibility and seek rehabilitative assistance. In these specialized courts, communities of stakeholders work collaboratively to prevent future crime. Although somewhat counterintuitive, specialty courts that offer such intensive and specific attention are often more cost effective and efficient than their traditional counterparts are. This Article posits that sex offense courts should be expanded beyond the handful of jurisdictions where they currently exist, not only …

The Collapse Of The House That Ruth Built: The Impact Of The Feeder System On Female Judges And The Federal Judiciary, 1970-2014, Alexandra G. Hess

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Coming Into The Anthropocene, Jedediah Purdy

Faculty Scholarship

This essay reviews Professor Jonathan Cannon’s Environment in the Balance. Cannon’s book admirably analyzes the Supreme Court’s uptake of, or refusal of, the key commitments of the environmental-law revolution of the early 1970s. In some areas the Court has adapted old doctrines, such as Standing and Commerce, to accommodate ecological insights; in other areas, such as Property, it has used older doctrines to restrain the transformative effects of environmental law. After surveying Cannon’s argument, this review diagnoses the historical moment that has made the ideological division that Cannon surveys especially salient: a time of stalled legislation, political deadlock, and …

Challenging The Randomness Of Panel Assignment In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Adam S. Chilton, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three-judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this “fact,” and it has been relied on heavily by empirical researchers. Even though there are practical reasons to doubt that judges would always be randomly assigned to panels, this assumption has never been tested. This Article fill this void by doing so.

To determine whether the circuit courts utilize random assignment, we have created what we believe to be the largest dataset of panel assignments of those courts constructed to date. …

Reconceptualizing Managerial Judges, Steven Baicker-Mckee

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unwrapping The Box The Supreme Court Justices Have Gotten Themselves Into: Internal Confrontations Over Confronting The Confrontation Clause, Paul F. Rothstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Williams v. Illinois, handed down in 2012, is the latest in a new and revolutionary line of U.S. Supreme Court cases beginning with the 2004 decision of Crawford v. Washington which radically altered the Court's former approach to the Constitutional Confrontation Clause. That clause generally requires persons who make written or oral statements outside the trial, that may constitute evidence against a criminal defendant, to take the witness stand for cross-examination rather than those statements being presented at the trial only by the writing or by another person who heard the statement.

Previous to Crawford, under Ohio v. …

The Abiding Exceptionalism Of Foreign Relations Doctrine, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In their article The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, Professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argue that “[foreign affairs] exceptionalism . . . is now exceptional,” and that this is a good thing. I agree with much of the authors’ normative argument for “normalization” of foreign affairs doctrine (as they define the term). But the authors overstate the extent to which such normalization has already occurred. There have indeed been some recent Supreme Court decisions that seem to lack the exceptional deference to the Executive that had characterized judicial decisionmaking in the foreign affairs area in previous years. But foreign …