Jurisprudence Commons^™

Scientific Educations Among U.S. Judges, Christa J. Laser

American University Law Review

Should more judges have technical and scientific educations than are currently prevalent in the federal judiciary? This empirical study of the educational background of federal judges reports the undergraduate and graduate majors of active U.S. federal Article III judges. Information on the subject area of study is largely not publicly available, especially for judges appointed decades ago. This is the first and only publicly available research study of the subject areas of study of U.S. judges, collected via phone and email surveys to U.S. judges. The results of this study show that only 7.35% of federal judges have majors in …

Fixing Double Patenting, Mark A. Lemley, Lisa Ouellette

American University Law Review

The U.S. patent doctrine of "double patenting" allows an inventor to obtain many patents on obvious variants of the same invention as long as they file a "terminal disclaimer" agreeing that all of these patents will expire simultaneously. Two recent limitations on double patenting practice have led

to vigorous protest from the patent bar. First, the Federal Circuit held in In re Cellect that patents tied by double patenting must expire on the same day, even if one of the patents has received a patent term adjustment giving it a more-than-twenty-year term. Second, the USPTO proposed a rule (since withdrawn) …

The Right To Acquire Property, John G. Sprankling

American University Law Review

Can government prohibit the acquisition of all types of property? The intuitive answer to this question is “no.” But why? Is there a constitutional right to acquire property? And, if so, how does it apply if government merely prohibits acquisition of a certain type of property, such as contraceptives?

The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments restrict when property may be “taken” or “seized” and when a person may be “deprived” of property. Thousands of law review articles and hundreds of books have analyzed the scope of these provisions. But almost no modern attention has been devoted to their logical counterpart—the …

The Paradox Of Continuing Risk, W. Jonathan Cardi, Ashton Jenne, Chance Villarreal

American University Law Review

The continuing-risk rule is ubiquitously cited by Restatements, casebooks, and treatises as a core duty rule in negligence cases. Indeed, as this Article reveals, the rule has been “adopted”—in the sense that at least one court in a jurisdiction has applied the rule, and no court has rejected it—in thirty-one jurisdictions. In addition to the breadth of its adoption, the continuing-risk rule is also far-reaching: it imposes an affirmative duty to warn, protect, or rescue another from a risk if the defendant’s conduct contributed to the initial creation of that risk. Because most negligence cases involve risk-creating conduct by the …

Electing The Supreme Court, Dmitry Bam

FIU Law Review

There is a curious irony in how we select United States Supreme Court justices. According to basic constitutional theory, as well as the arguments made by many leading Framers at the time of the Founding, one of the Court’s primary roles is to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches when they exceed the constitutional limits imposed by the American people. Yet, we ask those very branches to jointly select the justices responsible for enforcing these limits, leaving the American people with only an indirect (if any) role in the process. Not surprisingly, the justices nominated by …

Substance And Process In Corporate Law: Theory And History, William Wilson Bratton, Simone M. Sepe

Articles

Over the last half-century, corporate law has moved from substance to process as the Delaware courts have avoided direct review of the merits of transactions, substituting review of the processes that brought the transactions about. This is a familiar observation, perhaps a truism. But it is a truism that is undertheorized. This article addresses the theory gap, suggesting a structural reason for the trend. Simply, the courts avoid reviewing substance because they lack a theory of value. The theoretical void disables direct evaluation of transactional merits. Process review avoids this problem. Processes and their operation are the lawyer's stock in …

Pozen And The Puzzle Of Counterfactuals, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution and the War on Drugs, David Pozen’s carefully researched and brilliantly argued book, is both illuminating and disturbing: illuminating because it unearths forgotten moments when judicially formulated constitutional doctrine that could have ended or sharply restricted the War on Drugs were well within the Overton Window, and disturbing because it surfaces hard questions about historical contingency and the scope of the change that might have occurred in a counterfactual world. In this review, the author argues that the failure to specify both the nature of the counterfactual and the breadth of the alternative possibility have confused discussions …

What Is Trump Immunity?, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a former President is entitled to an immunity in criminal cases in certain circumstances. The decision has been heavily criticized, with many commentators saying it places the President above the law. Exactly how it does so depends on what type of immunity a former President enjoys. Is the immunity enjoyed by former Presidents in criminal cases an immunity from the operation of the primary obligations imposed by the criminal laws in question? Or is it an immunity from being subjected to certain types of sanctions for having violated validly …

Defining The Field Of Judicial Administration, Marin K. Levy

Faculty Scholarship

This Keynote address, as part of a symposium on "Theorizing the Judicial Process," aims to make a case for the field of judicial administration and to define the field more generally. Specifically, it seeks to raise the organizing questions of the field and to note the kind of work--descriptive, empirical, and theoretical--that is needed to answer them. The hope is to map out a collective research agenda for courts scholars to pursue into the future for the benefit of the academy and judiciary, both.

Human Rights Methodology For Clinical Instruction: Legal Theory And Interdisciplinary Practices To Realize Human Rights Outcomes, Diane Desierto

Journal Articles

The interdisciplinary fact-finding and analytical methodologies of global human rights law, when translated to experiential learning practices (e.g., in the form of human rights legal assessments that integrate international law with domestic law and inject rigorous plausibility evaluations of client claims applicable to global as well as domestic fora) can usefully enhance and expand United States law school clinical teaching practices and the transfer of practical lawyering skills. By teaching law students: (1) the wide range of available human rights factfinding and empirical tools; (2) the techniques for broad use and application of primary and secondary evidentiary sources; and (3) …

Agreeing To Disagree: Abortion Jurisprudence In Jewish And Islamic Law, Rabea Benhalim

Publications

This Article challenges the prevailing perception that religious people and religious legal traditions are anti-abortion. While this may be true within certain conservative Christian perspectives, this perception is an inaccurate representation of Jewish and Muslim Americans and their respective legal traditions. Both the Jewish and Islamic legal traditions offer a range of nuanced positions on abortion. Furthermore, diverse opinions of Jewish and Islamic abortion jurisprudence inform a variety of topics salient to the current legal debate in the United States. This range of opinions includes strict limitations on abortion, circumstantial legality, and general permissibility. Scholars from both traditions engaged in …

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …

From Race-Conscious To Race-Neutral: The Next Generation Of Litigation Over Selective Admissions, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, there have been fierce debates over the meaning of colorblindness in the higher education admissions process. Setting the stage for these controversies are recent lawsuits challenging changes to admissions policies at selective public high schools. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that although school officials relied on facially race-neutral criteria, their actions were motivated by a desire to improve the representation of Black and Latino students. According to the complaints, these revised policies are an impermissible form …

Trumpian Populism And The Changing Intellectual Landscape In Antitrust: Century-Old Resonances, The New Right And Possible End Of An Era., Jonathan B. Baker

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Three sides predominated in the U.S. antitrust policy debate during the Biden administration: neo-Brandeisians (or antimonopolists), centrist reformers (or post-Chicagoans), and conservatives (or Chicagoans). At that time, Trumpian populists did not comfortably fit with any of these groups and were at best secondary participants in policy discussions.

Nine months after the start of the second Trump administration, the intellectual landscape was different. Trumpian populism has now taken center stage at the antitrust enforcement agencies through two senior appointments-- Abigail (Gail) Slater as Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Mark Meador as a Federal Trade …

Why Did Prosecution Strengthen President Trump In The 2024 Election?, Steven Arrigg Koh

Faculty Scholarship

Why did criminal prosecution strengthen President Donald Trump's electoral prospects in the 2024 federal election? It was not supposed to be this way: after President Trump's 2024 New York state conviction, many speculated that President Trump's "felon" status would imperil his political career. In fact, the opposite occurred: federal and state criminal prosecutions reenergized President Trump's 2024 presidential candidacy. Contemporary criminal law theories-traditional individualist, expressivist, and critical-struggle to explain why. 

This Article advances a theory of criminal coalescence to explain why the Trump prosecutions led the former President to political victory. Criminal coalescence is the intensification of mass support for …

What Is Deeply Rooted In The Constitution?, Thomas P. Crocker

BYU Law Review

In a series of cases stretching over a century, the Court made a right’s roots a constitutive feature of its identity. Highlighting the analytic centrality of deep roots to the recognition of rights, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health withdrew prior judicial recognition of a woman’s right to reproductive choice, arguing that such a right was not properly rooted in the American legal tradition. But what does it mean for a right to have deep roots? A surprising feature of American constitutionalism is that there is no single answer to the basic analytic question of what it means for a right …

Legal Summaries Of Administrative Law Cases, Kimberly M. Papadantonakis

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Ghost Guns: A Case Study On The Tension Between Public Exigencies And Statutory Construction, Bradley Krause

Catholic University Law Review

Administrative agencies often navigate public policy issues while simultaneously handling complex and highly technical matters. When facing a public emergency, how should courts interpret these agencies’ authorizing statutes? What rules of thumb exist to guide the courts? This Comment answers these questions through a case study on ongoing litigation pertaining to a recent ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) regulation. The regulation, targeted towards ghost guns (also known as “privately manufactured firearms”), seeks to incorporate these weapons within pre-existing definitions in the ATF’s authorizing statute, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). In spite of challenges to the regulation, …

Prejudice And Promise In The Early Years Of The Federal Judiciary, George L. Haskins

Maine Law Review

Preserving the dignity of the human individual and protecting individual rights from the excesses of governmental power have been endemic problems for politically organized society in the western world for centuries. From antiquity and the early middle ages comes the thought that "government" became necessary because of he sinfulness or depravity of man. But it was not suggested that rulers should be all-powerful nor that the people who are governed should be entirely at the mercy of government. Indeed, our classic ideal of the democratic state first emerged in Greece, then briefly again in Rome, and later — but for …

The Primacy Method Of State Constitutional Decisionmaking: Interpreting The Maine Constitution, Glen S. Goodnough

Maine Law Review

The past fifteen years have witnessed the steady growth of both the theory and practice of state constitutional law. Initial inquiry focused on whether state supreme courts should provide their residents more expansive substantive and procedural rights under their state constitutions than required by United States Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution. Given the plethora of state constitutional decisions expanding rights beyond the federally required minimum, or "floor," it is apparent that a large number of state supreme courts have settled the question of whether they will in fact interpret their state constitutions in such a manner. Nevertheless, lingering …