Judges Commons^™

Trading Diversity? Judicial Diversity And Case Outcomes In Federal Courts, Ryan W. Copus, Ryan Hübert, Paige Pellaton

Faculty Works

Are federal lawsuits resolved differently based on the race or gender of the judges assigned to hear them? Recent empirical research posits that women and judges of color decide cases more liberally, at least in some identity-salient areas of law. However, these studies analyze small numbers of cases and judges, and use research designs that limit their causal interpretations. Using an original dataset of all civil rights cases filed in 20 federal district courts over multiple decades and a strong causal identification strategy, we find that assignment of cases to judges of color or women has no statistically significant effect …

“Any Rebroadcast, Retransmission, Or Account Of This Trial Without The Express Written Consent Of The Judge Is Prohibited”: The First Amendment And Judicial Constraints On Redistributing Courtroom Video, Frank D. Lomonte, Rachel Jones

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Opinion And Judicial Decision-Making: A Relationship Explored Through Interviews With Local, State And Federal Judges Within Mobile County, Alabama, Bella Gin

Honors Theses

Civilians and legal scholars alike often speculate how judges rule and what contributes to their decision-making. Acknowledging this conundrum and combining it with my own interests in the legal field, I attempt to explore how some judges located within Mobile County perceive public opinion and what factors direct their rulings over their respective case dockets. Through seven, semi-structured interviews, I ask each judge a series of questions regarding their backgrounds, decision-making methodologies, thoughts on public opinion relevancy, and application of their approaches to their judgeships. Analysis of the interviewees’ responses reveals data that suggests the judges have a somewhat ambivalent …

The Attorney General V Rajan Mahthani (Appeal No. 4 Of 2020) [2025] Zmsc (24 July 2025): Judicial Recusal And Why It Is Important To Strike A Balance, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

This contribution examines The Attorney General v Rajan Mahthani, a Supreme Court ruling on judicial recusal. The author critically assesses the Court’s insistence on proving actual, extrajudicial bias as a prerequisite for recusal. Though the importance of shielding the judiciary from frivolous motions is acknowledged, the piece warns that the Court’s rigid stance, paired with its admonishing tone, may undermine the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution. Drawing on South African and Kenyan jurisprudence, the author proposes adopting a “reasonable apprehension of bias” standard that respects judicial independence while safeguarding public confidence in the …

Deadly Choices: Political, Legal, And Moral Understandings Of U.S. Supreme Court Death Penalty Decisions, Anabelle S. Bergstrom

Honors Scholar Theses

This thesis explores the political, legal, and moral factors that influence Supreme Court justices when penning capital punishment decisions. It also examines the evolution of thinking toward the death penalty by former justices John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun throughout their tenure on the Court. Cases are analyzed through fact-pattern analysis and the jurisprudential regime theory, which quantitatively build upon existing literature detailing the theoretical background of judicial decision-making through the attitudinal model. An analysis of Justices Blackmun and Stevens’ papers at the Library of Congress focuses on rhetoric that reflects utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. Findings show that …

A Distinctive Court: A Glimpse Into The History And Significance Of The D.C. Circuit, Judge J. Michelle Childs

Fordham Law Review

Judge J. Michelle Childs serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before her appointment, Judge Childs received a B.A. from the University of South Florida Honors College and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She also received Masters degrees from the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business and from Duke University School of Law, as well as an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the University of South Carolina. After working in private practice for eight years, Judge Childs received an appointment to serve as the Deputy Director for the …

Misusing Eminent Domain: Pretextual Takings For A Traditional Public Use, Cameron P. Hellerman

Fordham Law Review

Eminent domain is a powerful tool at the disposal of local, state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution imposes two conditions on this sovereign power: the taking must be for “public use,” and the condemner must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. There are minimal guardrails in place to police potential misuse of the eminent domain power in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court equates “public use” with “public purpose” and applies a deferential standard of review to a condemner’s determination that a taking serves a public purpose. Nonetheless, the Court in Kelo v. City …

“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. …

Text, Context, Or Both?: Considering When And How To Use Statutory History In The New Textualist Framework, Devon Brostoff

Fordham Law Review

Statutory history represents the evolution of a statute through enacted amendments. Although textualists have widely rejected traditional forms of legislative history, statutory history has not received the same fate. Instead, textualists have accepted the use of statutory history as a resource separate from—and superior to—legislative history. Thus, this Note examines how courts are using statutory history, focusing primarily on the author’s analysis of a set of courts of appeals cases that rely on statutory history. Using these cases, this Note explores whether statutory history is best understood as text or context within the interpretation process. Further, this Note challenges the …

The Conversation Continues: The Judiciary’S Evolving Role In Perpetuating Racial Disparities In Addiction Treatment, Sydney Crute

Fordham Law Review

Language is a powerful means of social control, an idea that resonates deeply with court rhetoric as it relates to race. This Note examines the language courts use when discussing cases related to drug use and addiction. During the crack epidemic, when Black individuals represented the race of the primary drug user and drug dealer, courts relied on racially coded language related to crime and fear. Alternatively, during the opioid epidemic, when White individuals represented the race of the primary drug user, courts relied on more neutral language related to the health and well-being of society. Finally, the language courts …

Extralegal Factors Influencing Judicial Perceptions Of Defendants With Mental Illness, Hailey Erdbruegger

Undergraduate Honors Theses

The United States has one of the highest prison populations in the world. This means millions of individuals are either incarcerated or under other forms of supervision by the criminal justice system at any one given time. All those millions of individuals had to move through the U.S. criminal courts and thus engage with multiple forms of courtroom participants along the way. Of those millions coming through the system, many have either been diagnosed with a mental illness, or have self-reported having a mental illness. This makes the personal beliefs, stigmas, and biases of the previously mentioned courtroom participants regarding …

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 …