Judges Commons^™

Precedent As Rational Persuasion, Brian N. Larson

Faculty Scholarship

The ways that judges and lawyers make and justify their arguments and decisions have profound impacts on our lives. Understanding those practices in light of theories of reasoning and argumentation is thus critical for understanding law and the society it shapes. An inquiry that explores the very foundations of all legal reasoning leads to a broad, important question: How do lawyers and judges use cited cases in their legal arguments? It turns out there is practically no empirical research to suggest the answer. As the first step in a comprehensive empirical effort to answer this question, this article performs a …

The Rhetoric Of Racism In The United States Supreme Court, Kathryn M. Stanchi

Scholarly Works

This Article is the first study that categorizes and analyzes all the references to the terms "racist," "racism," and "white supremacy" throughout Supreme Court history. It uses the data to tease out how the Court shaped the meaning of these terms and uncovers a series of patterns in the Court's rhetorical usages. The most striking pattern uncovered is that, for the Supreme Court, racism is either something that just happens without any acknowledged racist actor or something that is perpetrated by a narrow subset of usual suspects, such as the Ku Klux Klan or Southern racists. In the Supreme Court's …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Assessing President Obama’S Appointment Of Women To The Federal Appellate Courts, Laura Moyer

Faculty and Staff Scholarship

A major legacy of the Obama presidency was the mark he left on the federal courts with respect to increasing judicial diversity. In particular, President Obama’s appointments of women to the federal judiciary exceeded all previous presidents in terms of both absolute numbers and as a share of all judges; he also appointed a record-setting number of women of color to the lower federal courts. In this Article, I take an intersectional approach to exploring variation in the professional backgrounds, qualifications, and Senate confirmation experiences of Obama’s female appeals court appointees, comparing them with George W. Bush and Bill Clinton …

Behind Bartkus: A Flamboyant Lawyer, A Vindictive Judge, And The Untold Story Of Double Jeopardy’S Dual Sovereignty, Stephen E. Henderson, Dean Strang

Faculty Articles

A young defense attorney earns his client, charged in federal court with bank robbery, a jury acquittal. (It’s the attorney’s first.) One would expect the impartial judge to thank the jury for its service. Instead, this one harangues both jury and defense attorney (“entailing changes in his complexion from red to purple to dead white”), publicly rails against the verdict, attempts to bar the jurors from future service, refuses to release the defendant, and successfully prods prosecutors to bring a duplicative state prosecution that would end in conviction for the same crime. To anyone who respects the rule of law—or …

Thinking Like A Lawyer About Legislation: Implementing Legislative Decision Theory Through Improved Citation, Hugh L. Brady

Journal of Legislation

The Texas Supreme Court in the late 1990s, in two significant cases, arguably interpreted statutes to achieve a result directly opposite to the Texas Legislature’s decision to adopt a specific text. Why do lawyers and judges struggle when reading and applying legislation, especially when using enactment history? Under Professor Victoria Nourse’s legislative decision theory, the struggle is attributable to the fact that lawyers do not consider the legislature’s institutional rules and procedures to find the proper text to interpret a statute in light of the available legislative evidence. Wider implementation of her theory is hampered by current legal citation practices …

Foreword, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Foreword.

The Deans' Roundtable, Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean Danielle Conway, Dean Tamara Lawson, Dean Mario Barnes, Dean L. Song Richardson

Seattle University Law Review

The Deans' Roundtable.

Reform Through Resignation: Why Chief Justice Roberts Should Resign (In 2023), Scott P. Bloomberg

Faculty Publications

Many proponents of reforming the Supreme Court have expressed support for adopting a system of eighteen-year staggered term limits. These proposals, however, are hobbled by constitutional constraints: Amending the Constitution to implement term limits is highly implausible and implementing term limits through statute is likely unconstitutional. This Essay offers an approach to implementing term limits that avoids these constitutional constraints. Just as President Washington was able to establish a de facto Presidential term limit by not seeking a third term in office, Chief Justice Roberts is uniquely positioned to establish a new norm of serving eighteen-year terms on the Court. …

Teaching With Feminist Judgments, Bridget J. Crawford, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This chapter, part of Integrating Doctrine and Diversity: Inclusion and Equity in the Law School Classroom (Carolina Academic Press 2021), provides an overview of the U.S. Feminist Judgments Project, a collaboration of feminist scholars and lawyers who rewrite significant judicial opinions using feminist methods and reasoning. One of the primary goals of the series of Feminist Judgments books is to demonstrate that the law has a vast, but often unrealized, potential for social justice. The feminist judgment methodology requires the authors of rewritten opinions to act as judges in following the rules of precedent and custom—and to be bound by …

Cazul Aparenţei Ca Normativitate Transformativă. Exemple Din Dreptul American = The Case Of Appearance As A Transformative Norm. Examples From American Law, Dana Neacsu

Law Faculty Publications

Acestarticol discută cum adesea credem că aparenţa este o versiune superficială a realităţii. In acest sens, se demonstrează cum, în anumite condiţii, aparenţele pot facilita apariţia unei realităţi juridice. Mai mult, uneori, nu există nicio diferenţă normativă între apariţia şi realitatea unui interes legal. Totodată, se analizează pe scurt aparenţa de legalitate în contextul statului de drept american - în cateva exemple limitate la reglementările bancare şi activitatea judiciară.

This article discusses the relationship between appearance and reality from a legal perspective, dismantling the belief that appearance is a superficial version of reality without any cause or impact on it. …

Judges And The Deregulation Of The Lawyer's Monopoly, Jessica Steinberg, Anna Carpenter, Colleen Shanahan, Alyx Mark

Faculty Articles

In a revolutionary moment for the legal profession, the deregulation of legal services is taking hold in many parts of the country. Utah and Arizona, for instance, are experimenting with new regulations that permit nonlawyer advocates to play an active role in assisting citizens who may not otherwise have access to legal services. In addition, amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct in both states, as well as those being contemplated in California, now allow nonlawyers to have a partnership stake in law firms, which may dramatically change the way capital for the delivery of legal services is raised as …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

Intellectual Property: Naked Price & Pharmaceutical Trade Secret Overreach, Robin Feldman

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

Antitrust Law: Pharmaceutical “Pay For Delay” Reexamined, Robin Feldman

The Judges' Book

No abstract provided.

The Politics Of Regulating And Disciplining Judges In Nigeria, Olabisi D. Akinkugbe

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The disciplining of judges is a sensitive and complex challenge. In Nigeria, the complexity is heightened because the process is complicated by socio-political factors and public views about the motivations for disciplining some judges, including claims of political interference by the ruling government. This Chapter argues that both judicial discipline and the work of the National Judicial Council (NJC) – the body responsible for judicial regulation in Nigeria – are caught up within Nigeria’s peculiar socio-politics, a reality that a strictly legal analysis will miss. The Chapter analyzes contemporary challenges and controversies associated with the complaints and discipline procedure in …

Introduction: Disciplining Judges – Exercising Statecraft, Richard Devlin, Sheila Wildeman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Globally, countries are faced with a complex act of statecraft: how to design and deploy a defensible complaints and discipline regime for judges. In this collection, contributors provide critical analyses of judicial complaints and discipline systems in thirteen diverse jurisdictions, revealing that an effective and legitimate regime requires the nuanced calibration of numerous public values including independence, accountability, impartiality, fairness, reasoned justification, transparency, representation, and efficiency.

The jurisdictions examined are Australia, Canada, China, Croatia, England and Wales, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, and the United States. The core findings are four-fold. First, the norms and practices …

Oral Argument In The Time Of Covid: The Chief Justice Plays Calvinball, Tonja Jacobi, Timothy R. Johnson, Eve M. Ringsmuth, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

In this Article, we empirically assess the Supreme Court’s experiment in hearing telephonic oral arguments. We compare the telephonic hearings to those heard in person by the current Court and examine whether the Justices followed norms of fairness and equality. We show that the telephonic forum changed the dynamics of oral argument in a way that gave the Chief Justice new power, and that Chief Justice Roberts, knowingly or unknowingly, used that new power to benefit his ideological allies. We also show that the Chief interrupted the female Justices disproportionately more than the male Justices and gave the male Justices …