Judges Commons^™

Should Judges Have A Duty Of Tech Competence?, John G. Browning

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

In an era in which lawyers are increasingly held to a higher standard of “tech competence” in their representation of clients, shouldn’t we similarly require judges to be conversant in relevant technology? Using real world examples of judicial missteps with or refusal to use technology, and drawn from actual cases and judicial disciplinary proceedings, this Article argues that in today’s Digital Age, judicial technological competence is necessary. At a time when courts themselves have proven vulnerable to cyberattacks, and when courts routinely tackle technology related issues like data privacy and the admissibility of digital evidence, Luddite judges are relics that …

The Kavanaugh Court And The Schechter-To-Chevron Spectrum: How The New Supreme Court Will Make The Administrative State More Democratically Accountable, Justin Walker

Indiana Law Journal

In a typical year, Congress passes roughly 800 pages of law—that’s about a seveninch

stack of paper. But in the same year, federal administrative agencies promulgate

80,000 pages of regulations—which makes an eleven-foot paper pillar. This move

toward electorally unaccountable administrators deciding federal policy began in

1935, accelerated in the 1940s, and has peaked in the recent decades. Rather than

elected representatives, unelected bureaucrats increasingly make the vast majority

of the nation’s laws—a trend facilitated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in three

areas: delegation, deference, and independence.

This trend is about to be reversed. In the coming years, Congress will …

Boldly Marching Through Closed Doors: The Experiences Of The Earliest Female Attorneys In Their Own Words, Nicole P. Dyszlewski

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

History Of The First Women Project, Nicole P. Dyszlewski

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judicial Independence: Tweak The Guiding Paradigm, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Over time, the public has simply ceased to believe judges when say that they follow the law, and nothing but. If judges impose their ideological policy preferences, the argument goes, why should they be independent from political controls, when other policymakers are not? We have reached the point where, when judges seek to defend the customs and conventions that have guarded against incursions upon their independence by arguing that “we are all about the law and nothing else,” the public response has increasingly become, “No, no, no, your nose is growing.”

Chevron As Construction, Lawrence B. Solum, Cass R. Sunstein

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 1984, the Supreme Court declared that courts should uphold agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions, so long as those interpretations are reasonable. The Chevron framework, as it is called, is now under serious pressure. Current debates can be both illuminated and softened with reference to an old distinction between interpretation on the one hand and construction on the other. In cases of interpretation, judges (or agencies) must ascertain the meaning of a statutory term. In cases of construction, judges (or agencies) must develop implementing principles or specify a statutory term. Chevron as construction is supported by powerful arguments; it …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Akron Law Review

This article—part of a symposium on federal appellate procedure—addresses questions of appellate jurisdiction that have played an important role in litigation challenging Donald Trump’s conduct under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. When federal trial judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland rejected Trump’s early attempts to dismiss two of these cases, Trump sought immediate relief from the federal courts of appeals rather than allowing the litigation to proceed in the district courts. The lack of a traditional final judgment, however, prompted difficult jurisdictional issues for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the relationship between appellate mandamus …

Three Ideas For Discretionary Appeals, Bryan Lammon

Akron Law Review

Discretionary appeals currently play a limited role in federal appellate jurisdiction. But reformers have long argued for a larger role. And any wholesale reform of the current appellate-jurisdiction system will likely involve additional or expanded opportunities for discretionary appeals. In this essay, I offer three ideas for the future of discretionary appeals—what form they might take in a reformed system of federal appellate jurisdiction and how we might learn about their function. First, remove any limits on the types of decisions that can be certified for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Second, give parties one opportunity in a …

The Renaissance Of Permissive Interlocutory Appeals And The Demise Of The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Akron Law Review

Reserving appeals to final judgments has a long history in the federal courts, as do exceptions to that rule. The problem has less been the existence of the exceptions, but rather their scope and application. This article addresses two of those exceptions. One is permissive interlocutory appeals codified in section 1292(b) of the Judicial Code. That exception, requiring the permission of both the trial and appellate courts, has numerous advantages over other exceptions, has been frequently touted as such by the Supreme Court, and has been applied in several recent high-profile cases. In contrast, the collateral order doctrine, an ostensible …

Judicial Disqualification On Appeal, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Gregory Hilbert

Akron Law Review

Adjudication by an impartial decision maker is one of the cornerstones of due process. The interest is so fundamental that constitutional due process guards against even the appearance of partiality, and federal judges are statutorily required to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Courts and scholars alike have struggled with what it means to “reasonably question” a judge’s impartiality. That question has taken on greater salience in recent years, as deepening partisan divisions have increasingly led parties to express skepticism of judicial neutrality.

When a party files a motion to disqualify a judge …

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

Fixing The Broken System Of Assessing Criminal Appeals For Frivolousness, Andrew S. Pollis

Akron Law Review

This article seeks to end fifty years of confusion over how to proceed when a criminal defendant wants to appeal but appointed counsel sees no basis for doing so.

Practices vary among jurisdictions, but most require counsel to explain the predicament to the court—often at a level of detail that compromises the duty of loyalty to the client. Most also require the court to double-check counsel’s conclusion by conducting its own independent review of the record, thus burdening judges and blurring the important line between judge and advocate. And at no point in this process does the defendant have a …

Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin

Brooklyn Law Review

Personal jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for any civil court’s constitutional exercise of adjudicative authority over a defendant, and one of civil procedure’s most fundamental concepts. The Supreme Court is acutely aware of difficulties facing personal jurisdiction doctrine in an evolving world and the need for jurisprudential solutions to those problems. But recent inconsistent trends in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence have served to further complicate the doctrine. Such overcomplication often leads to unpredictability, which both increases expenses for litigants and creates additional work for the already overburdened federal civil docket. This problem is exacerbated when litigation arises out of …

Civil Military Relations Panel, Joshua E. Kastenberg

Faculty Scholarship

In the first week of this month, the nation was surprised to learn that retired general officers (generals and admirals) including James Mattis, Colin Powell, Michael Glenn Mullen, and William McRaven (to name a few) spoke out against President Donald Trump’s response to demonstrations across the United States. President Trump threatened to unilaterally invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act and federalize the National Guard as well as use the active duty Armed Forces of the United States as a “super police force.”

The conduct of the retired generals is not without detractors. The Constitution was constructed with the idea that a …

A Survivor's Perspective: Federal Judicial Selection From George Bush To Donald Trump, Leslie H. Southwick

Notre Dame Law Review

Over recent decades, federal judicial selection controversies are worsening in their frequency and intensity. They distort all three branches of government. My particular concern is with federal judicial selection for judgeships below the Olympian heights of those on the United States Supreme Court, namely, the judges on the twelve regional circuit courts of appeals and the ninety-four district courts.

The depth of partisan acrimony over judicial confirmations has placed us in the infernal regions, and we seem to be continuing our descent. Analyzing how we got there is invariably affected by the biases, or more gently, by the perspectives of …

Civil Procedure Update 2020: New Mexico Annual Judicial Conclave, Verónica C. Gonzales, George Bach

Faculty Scholarship

These materials are part of a presentation on civil procedure given to magistrate, district, appellate, and tribal court judges, justices, and staff attorneys in New Mexico courts. These materials include the language of approved and proposed amendments to the state and federal rules of civil procedure as well as summaries of relevant appellate cases issued by the New Mexico Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation between May 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020.

• Amendments to the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure include NMRA Rule …

The Balance Of Safety And Religious Freedom: Allowing Sikhs The Right To Practice Their Religion And Access Courthouses, Karamvir Dhaliwal

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

What Probate Courts Cite: Lessons From The New York County Surrogate’S Court 2017-2018, Bridget J. Crawford

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

By knowing what a judge cites, one may better understand what the judge believes is important, how the judge understands her work will be used, and how the judge conceives of the judicial role. Empirical scholars have devoted serious attention to the citation practices and patterns of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals, and multiple state supreme courts. Remarkably little is known about what probate courts cite. This Article makes three principal claims — one empirical, one interpretative, and one normative. This Article demonstrates through data, derived from a study of all decrees …

Rewriting Judicial Recusal Rules With Big Data, Raymond J. Mckoski

Utah Law Review

Big data affects the personal and professional life of every judge. A judge’s travel time to work, creditworthiness, and chances of an IRS audit all depend on predictive algorithms interpreting big data. A client’s choice of counsel, the precise wording of a litigant’s motion, and the composition of the jury may be dictated by analytics. Touted as a means of bringing objectivity to judicial decision-making, judges have employed big data to determine sentences and to set the amount of restitution in class action cases. Unfortunately, the legal profession and big data proponents have ignored one perplexing problem begging for a …

Reflections On The Influence Of Social Media On Judging, Peter D. Lauwers Justice

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

This essay examines the influence of social media on judging. While the ethical implications of judges’ engagement in social media have received some scholarly attention, the actual influence of social media on judging has not.1 But it is possible to make some useful observations that might at once seem obvious and disquieting.

This essay is divided into four parts. Part 1 describes the normative judicial disposition. Part 2 examines the psychology of judging. Part 3 asks what could go wrong with the judicial use of social media. Part 4 describes a stance judges might take towards social media.