Judges Commons^™

Foreword, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plausibly Illiberal: Sua Sponte Dismissals Of Pro Se Complaints Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pierce Edlich

Fordham Law Review

Over a quarter of civil litigants file suit in federal court without an attorney. Most unrepresented litigants are in prison, and many of their cases raise complex, delicate constitutional questions. The number of unrepresented litigants in federal courts rose steadily until the 1990s, when Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995 to limit the burden of frivolous inmate litigation on federal courts. Since 1996, the PLRA has defined courts’ procedural obligations for inmate and in forma pauperis (IFP) suits, often filed pro se. The PLRA requires that courts screen and dismiss sua sponte cases that are frivolous, …

Roger Williams University 2024 President's Report: A Message From President Miaoulis, Roger Williams University

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Redressing Judicial Misbehavior: An Integrated Approach To Judicial Immunity, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

Immunities generate intense public interest and controversy. Whether it is the sweeping presidential immunity that former President Trump has claimed or the qualified immunity that rogue police invoke to evade financial responsibility for their brutality, immunities stand as a highly contested aspect of the American legal system. Judicial immunity incites similar controversy. American judges possess absolute immunity from civil suits for their judicial acts, so victims are barred from seeking civil compensation, even against judges who engage in purposeful or malicious misconduct from the bench. For decades scholars have sought to curtail absolute judicial immunity, but they have overlooked a …

Chevron Deference Is Dead, Long Live Deference, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The demise of Chevron deference standing alone may turn out to be much less important for the future of administrative law and agency regulation than many believe. The Court explicitly approved of deference under the Skidmore factors, which instruct reviewing courts to “resort for guidance, even on legal questions” to “the interpretations and opinions of the relevant agency, made in pursuance of official duty and based upon specialized experience.”8 Further, the Court had already created numerous limitations to the reach of Chevron deference and, as the Court noted, it had not deferred under Chevron in nearly a decade. Chevron deference …

2024 Esther Clark Moot Court Competition 10-28-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Join Us For A Conversation With Judge Matthew Solomson: Building A Legal Career, Rising To The Bench, And Defending American Values, Cardozo Federalist Society, Matthew H. Solomson

2024–2025 Flyers

No abstract provided.

A Fundamental Failing: The Mississippi Judiciary's Abrogation Of Its Constitutional Duty, Brad Robertson

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Legally Magic" Words: An Empirical Study Of The Accessibility Of Fifth Amendment Rights, Roseanna Sommers, Kate Weisburd

Northwestern University Law Review

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using “explicit,” “clear,” and “unambiguous” statements—or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using “legally magic” words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do …

Accommodating Incompetency In Immigration Court, Elizabeth Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

In criminal law, an individual must be deemed competent to stand trial, yet our immigration courts routinely order the deportation of incompetent noncitizens. A removal proceeding against a noncitizen—where an outcome of deportation often risks life-threatening harm—continues apace even if the noncitizen has been deemed incompetent by the immigration judge. In place of halting proceedings, the immigration judge imposes “safeguards” pursuant to a provision of the immigration code that neither defines nor explains the term. In practice, judges’ application of the term “safeguards” is often absurd. The implications of continuing a proceeding against a noncitizen with a disability affecting competency …

Law School News: Exploring Law From Classroom To Courtroom 11-08-2024, Andrew Clark

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Judicial Leadership In Family Court: A Cautionary Tale, Jane M. Spinak

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

Law, Fact, And Appellate Review, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

For centuries, courts have been called upon to distinguish between law and fact. That distinction played a key role in recent Supreme Court decisions on two critical components of appellate review. Dupree v. Younger considered an important question regarding what a party must do at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review. And Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. addressed how to select and apply the standard of appellate review--specifically, whether and how the appellate court must show deference to particular decisions made at the trial level.
Both decisions were partially right. Dupree correctly focused on whether certain early …

Rwu Law Alumni Newsletter November 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Accountability In Preserving Judicial Independence: Examining The Ethical Infrastructure Of The Federal Judicial Workplace, Susan Saab Fortney

Faculty Scholarship

After news reports of sexual harassment allegations involving federal judges, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to assemble a working group to address concerns related to misconduct in the federal judicial workplace. Following the working group’s report, the judiciary adopted recommendations relating to discrimination and harassment in the federal judiciary. Using the ethical infrastructure framework, this article reviews what changes have been made and what is missing. It explains how the steps taken largely focus on formal aspects of communicating and monitoring standards of conduct. Notably missing are …

Women In Robes October 28, 2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

A Statistical Look At The Supreme Court's 2009 Term, John M. Schleb Ii, Colin Glennon, Hemant Sharma

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

Whether a change in membership occurs or not, every Supreme Court term presents a unique set of controversies and decisions for legal scholars to examine. Herein, we offer a discussion of the Court's recently completed 2009-2010 term. Rather than analyzing specific opinions in detail (as many have already done), we generate a comprehensive statistical analysis of justice voting behavior for the term. In particular, we examine consensus and division on the Court, the ideological tenor of the term, voting alignments among the justices, the production of opinions, and the Court's overall ideological spectrum based on individual voting patterns. Ultimately, we …

Panel Discussion 4: Best Practices In Representing Children In Court, Timothy Irwin, Carlton Lewis, Dwight Stokes

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy

No abstract provided.

The Costs Of The Vexatious Lawyer: Who Bears Responsibility?, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article investigates how the law should respond to a lawyer who engages in unprofessional, tormenting, or what is often referred to as “vexatious” conduct during litigation. At present, a federal law – 28 U.S.C. §1927 – allows courts to issue sanctions upon a vexatious lawyer. When such a lawyer works for a law firm, a deep split has emerged among the circuits. Some courts have ruled that law firms may also be liable for their lawyers’ actions under the statute. Other circuits, though, have concluded that law firms are free from this type of vicarious liability. Unfortunately, the problem …

U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit To Hold Oral Argument At The Maurer School Of Law, James Owsley Boyd

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

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—one of 13 appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary—will hear oral argument at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law on Thursday, October 24.

The arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Law School’s DeLaney Moot Court Room. The proceedings are open to the public, with seating available on a first-come, first-served basis starting at 9 a.m. An overflow room will be available if needed. The arguments are expected to conclude by 12:30 p.m.

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has a …