Judges Commons^™

Constitutional Cases And The Four Cardinal Virtues, R. George Wright

Cleveland State Law Review

In addressing constitutional cases, judges face no shortage of legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies upon which to draw. In those cases, the challenge is assumed to be to identify and apply the most relevant such legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies. An accompanying judicial opinion tries to articulate this process, partly to legitimize the outcome, partly to provide guidance, and perhaps partly for purposes of civic education and inspiration. This Article recommends a somewhat different approach to constitutional adjudication. Specifically, this Article recommends supplementing the above standard forms of constitutional adjudication with appropriate and legitimate attention to …

Our Broken Misdemeanor Justice System: Its Problems And Some Potential Solutions, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Although misdemeanors comprise an overwhelming majority of state criminal court cases, little judicial and scholarly attention has been focused on how misdemeanor courts actually operate. In her article, Misdemeanors, Alexandra Natapoff rights this wrong and explains how the low-visibility, highly discretionary decisions made by actors at the misdemeanor level often result in rampant discrimination, incredible inefficiency, and vast miscarriages of justice. Misdemeanors makes a significant contribution to the literature by refocusing attention on the importance of misdemeanor offenses and beginning an important dialogue about what steps should be taken going forward to fix our broken misdemeanor justice system.

Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, …

Justifying Diversity In The Federal Judiciary, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

This Essay thus scrutinizes Obama’s judicial selection effort, which confirms many ideas that Scherer espouses while showing how political deficiencies in the modern selection process erode diversity and legitimacy, and perhaps Scherer’s provocative solution. This response ultimately discusses some promising measures beyond Scherer’s recommendation that could enhance diversity and legitimacy in light of the threat that politicization poses

Standing The Test Of Time: The Breadth Of Majority Coalitions And The Fate Of U.S. Supreme Court Precedents, Stuart M. Benjamin, Bruce A. Desmarais

Faculty Scholarship

Should a strategic Justice assemble a broader coalition for the majority opinion than is necessary, even if that means accommodating changes that move the opinion away from the author’s ideal holding? If the author’s objective is to durably move the law to his or her ideal holding, the conventional answer is no, because there is a cost and no corresponding benefit. We consider whether attracting a broad majority coalition can placate future courts. Controlling for the size of the coalition, we find that cases with ideologically narrow coalitions are more likely to be treated negatively by later courts. Specifically, adding …

No Justice In Utah's Justice Courts: Constitutional Issues, Systemic Problems, And The Failure To Protect Defendants In Utah's Infamous Local Courts, Samuel P. Newton, Teresa L. Welch, Neal G. Hamilton

Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement

Utah’s justice of the peace courts look and feel exactly like district courts, yet they lack the benefits and protections afforded to citizens charged with more serious offenses. Utah should strongly consider abolishing its justice courts in order to integrate them into a statewide system of justice that would “keep the peace” for all of the state’s citizens. If Utah does not abolish its justice courts, then it should implement the procedures and reforms outlined in this Article. Utah continues to have an opportunity to provide meaningful, and constitutional, justice administered at its local level. Once these reforms were implemented, …

The Fight Over "Fighting Regs" And Judicial Deference In Tax Litigation, Leandra Lederman

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The question of how much deference courts should accord agency interpretations of statutes is a high-profile and important issue that affects both rulemaking and case outcomes. What level of deference should courts accord an agency regulation or other rule that an agency has issued opportunistically, during the course of related litigation? This important question has arisen in numerous cases, including the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, a case involving a Treasury regulation.

To answer the question, the Article analyzes the law on judicial deference to tax authorities generally, as …

Elected Judges And Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Ethan J. Leib

Faculty Scholarship

This Article considers whether differences in methods of judicial selection should influence how judges approach statutory interpretation. Courts and scholars have not given this question much sustained attention, but most would probably embrace the “unified model,” according to which appointed judges (such as federal judges) and elected judges (such as many state judges) are supposed to approach statutory text in identical ways. There is much to be said for the unified model—and we offer the first systematic defense of it. But the Article also attempts to make the best case for the more controversial but also plausible contrary view: that …

Recusal, Government Ethics, And Superannuated Constitutional Theory, Keith Swisher

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

We, The Judges: The Legalized Subject And Narratives Of Adjudication In Reality Television, 81 Umkc L. Rev. 1 (2012), Cynthia D. Bond

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

At first a cultural oddity, reality television is now a cultural commonplace. These quasi-documentaries proliferate on a wide range of network and cable channels, proving adaptable to any audience demographic. Across a variety of types of "reality" offerings, narratives of adjudication replete with "judges," "juries," and "verdicts"-abound. Do these judgment formations simply reflect the often competitive structure or subtext of reality TV? Or is there a deeper, more constitutive connection between reality TV as a genre and narratives of law and adjudication? This article looks beyond the many "judge shows" popular on reality TV (e.g., Judge Judy') to examine the …

New Law, Old Cases, Fair Outcomes: Why The Illinois Supreme Court Must Overrule People V Flowers, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 727 (2012), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Text(Plus-Other-Stuff)Ualism:Textualists' Perplexing Use Of The Attorney General's Manual On The Administrative Procedure Act, K. M. Lewis

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Textualist judges, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are well known for their outspoken, adamant refusal to consult legislative history and its analogues when interpreting ambiguous provisions of statutory terms. Nevertheless, in administrative law cases, textualist judges regularly quote the Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, an unenacted Department of Justice document that shares all the characteristics of legislative history that textualists find odious: unreliability, bias, and failure to pass through the bicameralism and presentment processes mandated by the U.S. Constitution. As a result, judges that rely on the Manual in administrative law cases arguably reach …

To Advice And Consentdelay: The Role Of Interest Groups In The Confirmation Of Judges To The Federal Courts Of Appeal, Donald E. Campbell

Journal Articles

Political and partisan battles over nominees to the federal courts of appeal have reached unprecedented levels. This article considers the reasons for this change in the process. Using evidence from law and political science, this article proposes that current confirmation struggles are greatly influenced by increased involvement of interest groups in the process. The article tests the role of interest groups through an in-depth examination of George W Bush's nomination of Leslie H. Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Utilizing the Southwick case study, the article provides evidence of how interest groups impact the confirmation process by designating …

The Politicization Of Judicial Elections And Its Effect On Judicial Independence, Matthew W. Green Jr., Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This article presents the proceedings of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Symposium, The Politicization of Judicial Elections and Its Effect on Judicial Independence and LGBT Rights, held October 21, 2011. The idea for the conference stemmed from the November 2010 Iowa judicial election, in which three justices were voted out of office as a result of joining a unanimous ruling, Varnum v. Brien, that struck down, on equal protection grounds, a state statute limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples. The conference addresses whether the backlash that occurred in Iowa after the Varnum decision might undermine judicial independence in jurisdictions where …

The Disdain Campaign, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A response to Pamela S. Karlan, The Supreme Court 2011 Term Forward: Democracy and Disdain, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

In her Foreword, Professor Pamela Karlan offers a quite remarkable critique of the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court. She faults them not so much for the doctrines they purport to follow, or outcomes they reach, but for the attitude they allegedly manifest toward Congress and the people. “My focus here is not so much on the content of the doctrine but on the character of the analysis.” She describes Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion of the Court as …

The Politicization Of Judicial Elections And Its Effect On Judicial Independence, Matthew W. Green Jr., Susan J. Becker, Marsha K. Ternus, Camilla B. Taylor

Cleveland State Law Review

This article presents the proceedings of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Symposium, The Politicization of Judicial Elections and Its Effect on Judicial Independence and LGBT Rights, held October 21, 2011. The idea for the conference stemmed from the November 2010 Iowa judicial election, in which three justices were voted out of office as a result of joining a unanimous ruling, Varnum v. Brien, that struck down, on equal protection grounds, a state statute limiting marriage rights to heterosexual couples. The conference addresses whether the backlash that occurred in Iowa after the Varnum decision might undermine judicial independence in jurisdictions where …

Judicial Selection Reconsidered: A Plea For Radical Moderation, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

On The Occasion Of Leon Lazer’S 90th Birthday, Jeffrey B. Morris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

Judicial Review Of Refugee Determinations: The Luck Of The Draw?, Sean Rehaag

Articles & Book Chapters

Judicial review is often the only way to correct errors made by the Immigration and Refugee Board in refugee determinations. Applicants must seek leave from the Federal Court, where a judge will decide if their case is suitable for judicial review. The stakes are high for refugee claimants confronting deportation to countries where they may face persecution, torture or death. The author reviews over 23 000 applications for judicial review from 2005 to 2010, and finds troubling inconsistency in leave grant rates at the Federal Court. Over 36 per cent of judges deviated by more than 50 per cent from …