Judges Commons^™

The Law Through The King U.S. (Procedural) Judicial Activism From A European Perspective, Cesare Cavallini

Akron Law Review

This essay explores the phenomenon of judicial activism in the United States, focusing particularly on procedural aspects, from a comparative perspective influenced by the civil law tradition, especially the Italian legal system. While American legal discourse often criticizes judicial activism as an overreach by the judiciary—sometimes calling it “imperialist” in relation to recent Supreme Court decisions—this work reinterprets the concept through the more subtle mechanisms of procedural intervention. I argue that activism should not be viewed solely through the lens of constitutional interpretation or resistance to precedent. It should also consider judicial actions that reshape procedural norms, such as pleading …

Bankruptcy Judging After Williamson, Vincent S.J. Buccola

BYU Law Review

This Essay asks how bankruptcy judges ought to orient their substantial, statutory discretion in business reorganization cases. The motivating observation is that bankruptcy law enacts a kind of forced integration of productive assets. To shed light on the contemporary problems that bankruptcy judges face, I thus look to two classic approaches to the economic theory of the firm—from Oliver Williamson and from Oliver Hart. I conclude that nonjudicial institutions have largely surmounted the problems to which their theories point, leaving a different, and probably narrower, set of issues to worry about. Bankruptcy judges who have a notion that their job …

The Federalism Canons As Ordinary Interpretation, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars remain generally skeptical of substantive canons of statutory interpretation even as courts continue to employ such canons in important cases. Unlike semantic canons, which help judges discern the best meaning of statutory text in context, substantive canons provide tiebreakers when the text is unclear or require special clarity in order for the text to perform certain functions. Among the substantive canons, the so-called “federalism canons” have been singled out for special scrutiny. The federalism canons are a family of canons that require courts to avoid interpreting an act of Congress to divest states of certain sovereign rights or powers—including …

Electoral Due Process, Michael S. Kang

Northwestern University Law Review

Hyperpartisanship has hit century-long highs in American politics and is emboldening state government attempts to undermine election outcomes by using control over state lawmaking structure to strip away authority, and sometimes outright unseat, partisan opponents after they win elected office. Even as traditional norms against such moves have eroded, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-partisanship turn in removing judicial checks against such moves under equal protection and constitutional structure. This Article proposes shifting from challenges under those doctrines to a new approach under electoral due process for confronting this new generation of antidemocracy. Federal due process law restricts the …

Applying The Indian Commerce Clause To Indian Commerce, Adam Crepelle

Northwestern University Law Review

Indian country commerce generates tens of billions of dollars annually and is a constant source of litigation. These disputes typically revolve around jurisdictional conflicts: whether states, tribes, or both possess regulatory authority over the business operating in Indian country, particularly those involving non-Indians. Despite numerous court cases, no clear legal framework has emerged, creating pervasive uncertainty regarding fundamental issues, such as state taxation of tribal transactions and the proper forum for resolving Indian country contract disputes. Interestingly, these commercial cases overlook the Indian Commerce Clause—the constitutional provision designed to address such matters.

This Article argues the Indian Commerce Clause prohibits …

The Establishment That Time Forgot: The Historical Understanding Of Religious Offenses And Their Unconstitutionality In Modern Law, Benjamin J. Citow

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note argues that religious offenses, meaning laws which penalize conduct for religious purposes, should be barred by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, as the Clause was interpreted in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. This is because Kennedy interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit each of the several types of laws which early Americans associated with religious establishment—the historical practice wherein early states would adopt a religion as the state religion and pass various types of laws for its support. And religious offenses, this Note argues, were amongst the types of laws which early Americans so associated with …

The Role Of The U.S. State Department As An Amicus In Foreign Policy Abstention Analysis, Sarah Kurpius

Northwestern University Law Review

Foreign policy abstention is a novel and unsettled doctrine in international litigation. Unlike other established international litigation abstention doctrines, foreign policy abstention permits courts to decline jurisdiction when adjudication implicates significant foreign policy concerns. First invoked in 2004, the doctrine has since appeared sporadically in case law, most recently in the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Reid v. Doe Run Resources. Yet, its analytical framework remains muddy and amorphous, leading to inconsistent judicial application.

This Note examines one critical factor courts consider when determining whether to apply the foreign policy abstention: the strength of U.S. foreign policy interests in the …

Administrative Investigation As A Procedural Guarantee For The Validity Of The Disciplinary Decision In The Police System Of The United Arab Emirates And The Arab Republic Of Egypt, Abdulaziz Abdulmonem Khalifa

Journal of Police and Legal Sciences

The administrative investigation procedure in the police field was addressed According to the laws of the police force and security in the United Arab Emirates, as well as the Egyptian police authority, this research presents a statement of the concept of the administrative investigation procedure, the disciplinary violations subject to it, and the procedural guarantees required for its validity. This includes the powers of referral to such procedures, as well as the processes for conducting and concluding them.

The research was structured into two main topics, The first addressed the definition and nature of the administrative investigation procedure, The second …

The Venice Commission’S Impact Regarding The Fight With Democratic Backsliding And Rule Of Law Recovery: Reflections Of The Polish Example, Adam Bodnar

Human Rights Brief

The Article examines the role of the Venice Commission — the expert body affiliated with the Council of Europe — in addressing democratic backsliding and supporting the restoration of the rule of law, using Poland as a case study. It places the Venice Commission within the broader system of European constitutional governance and discusses its role when Poland moved, after 2015, towards the system of illiberal democracy. Opinions of the Venice Commission were significant in the evaluation of reforms affecting the Polish Constitutional Court, judicial independence, the prosecution service, and surveillance powers. They had impact on policies of the European …

The Bankruptcy Judge And The Generalist Tradition, Alexander Gouzoules

Faculty Publications

The prevailing academic consensus is that bankruptcy judges are specialists presiding over specialized courts. This Article contends that this description is incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate. Drawing on scholarly models of judicial specialization and historical surveys of the field, this Article contends that bankruptcy judges reflect a hybrid design choice: procedural specialization combined with substantive generalism. This model delivers many of the observed benefits of judicial specialization (including efficiency and technical competence) while preserving the cross-pollination of ideas and other benefits associated with the generalist tradition of American judging.

This Article also reflects on contemporary developments—most notably the rise …

Recalibrating Deference In Sentencing, Meghana Nemali

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) is responsible for promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in federal sentencing. In pursuit of this mandate, the Commission publishes the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are accompanied by official commentary. In Stinson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endowed the commentary with controlling authority. However, nearly three decades later, the Court in Kisor v. Wilkie granted courts greater discretion in deciding whether to defer to the commentary. Moreover, in 2024, the Court eliminated the absolute deference regime for administrative agency determinations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. As a result, …

Mexico’S Judicial Elections And The Politics Of Reform, Amanda Driscoll, Michael J. Nelson, Julio Ríos-Figueroa

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

A History Of Vacatur, Benjamin B. Johnson

UF Law Faculty Publications

Vacatur, a seemingly routine appellate tool, has evolved into one of the Supreme Court’s most potent instruments for declaring law. This Article offers the first comprehensive historical account of vacatur, tracing its roots from English and early American practice through its twentieth-century transformations to its contemporary uses. Historically, courts used vacatur to manage dockets, correct procedural irregularities, or enforce reversals on the merits. Modern usage has departed markedly from these roots. The Court now frequently employs vacatur to declare binding legal rules without issuing judgments, effectively circumventing traditional limits on judicial power. Taking seriously the Court’s own insistence on history …

Reimagining Self-Regulation In Sexual Misconduct Complaints: Trust Through Transfer, Allyson M. Mcbride

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

To increase trust in the judiciary’s ability to self-regulate, any formal complaints about a judge should not be handled by a colleague down the hall, but a judge from a different circuit. In this Comment, I propose automatic transfer out of circuit to improve the handling of sexual misconduct complaints specifically. I first describe the different ways judicial conduct is regulated in the federal system. I then discuss the problem of sexual misconduct in the judiciary. Finally, I outline why it is problematic for judges to adjudicate complaints about their intra-circuit colleagues and recommend that all complaints be automatically transferred …

Rewriting The Sentence: Second Look Sentencing In Rhode Island, Carter Hazzard

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Misinformation And The Jury, Gustavo Ribeiro

Indiana Law Journal

This Article bridges critical gaps between the growing body of social science research on misinformation and the persistent challenges jurors face in evaluating potentially unreliable evidence in courtrooms. Misinformation—a pervasive issue undermining decision-making in democratic societies—mirrors the difficulties jurors encounter in distinguishing truth from falsehood amid compelling but unreliable evidence. The consequences of such challenges are dire: wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the erosion of public trust in the legal system.

This Article is the first piece of legal scholarship to provide a comprehensive discussion of current research on the psychological mechanisms underlying susceptibility to misinformation—such as the illusory truth …

Symmetry, Presumptions, And The Judges Design, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

An instrumental variables approach called ‘the judges design’ used frequently in social sciences relies on an assumption called ‘average monotonicity’. This assumption pertains to how different judges’ (or other classifiers’) decision making processes relate to each other. Violations of it are hard to detect, which raises the importance of it being supported by a plausible theory. Decisions of judges who solve Bayesian decision problems violate average monotonicity as long as the signals they process are symmetric and they do not possess strong presumptions. This result is extended to cases where judge presumptions are symmetrically distributed and may include strong presumptions. …

Legalistic Noncompliance, Daniel Deacon, Leah Litman

Articles

Will the executive branch comply with court orders? That question has garnered a considerable amount of attention over the first few months of the second Trump administration. But what does it mean to comply? And what if a form of noncompliance is already occurring?

This Article documents an emerging practice that has dominated the second Trump administration's approach to unfavorable court rulings, a practice this Article calls legalistic noncompliance. Legalistic noncompliance occurs when the administration uses the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not. Drawing …

Do We Really Want Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justices Practicing Law? A Public Policy Critique To U.S. Supreme Court Term Limits, Michael J. Broyde, Hayden H. Hall

Faculty Articles

In its 2021 final report, the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform discussed the merits of implementing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The Commission began by acknowledging that eighteen-year, non-renewable terms have considerable bipartisan support, including the support of both Conservative and Progressive scholars at the National Constitution Center, whose proposals for improving the Constitution included term limits for justices. They continued by weighing the pros and cons of implementing term limits via constitutional amendment or statute, addressing, in turn, the specifics of what these limits might look like—whether a twelve or eighteen-year term is preferable, how a transition from …

Supporting Comparative Studies Of Judicial Behavior: Introducing The Australian High Court Database, Patrick Leslie, Zoë Robinson, Russell Smyth, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

Comparative research on law and legal institutions depends on high-quality data infrastructure. This article introduces the Australian High Court Database—a new resource that encodes structured information on all full judgments of the High Court of Australia between 1995 and 2020, and all leave applications (Australia’s equivalent to petitions for certiorari) from 2003 to 2018. The database is built in accordance with core principles that support comparative research: it is adaptable, and comparable. By attending to jurisdictional specificity while adhering to general standards, the database supports both within-country analysis and cross-national comparison. We illustrate how the Australian High Court Database can …