THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Since Chief Justice Taft's highly activist tenure, many people have looked to the Supreme Court for leadership in efforts to modernize federal judicial administration. This article reviews the role of the Chief Justice of the United States in federal judicial administration. as well as organizational and procedural improvements in court management at all three tiers of the federal court system, as seen by one trained in public administration Although improvement is apparent. other needed steps include less emphasis on the number of judgeships and more careful long-range planning and experimentation with new techniques     

FAMILY COURTS-20 YEARS AFTER REFORM

The Rt. Hon. Dame Elias discusses the changes the people of Australia and New Zealand have seen and can expect from their respective family courts. She goes on to say that if judges of the family court are to play a more positive role in society, they need to stay abreast of what is happening with current legal trends as they relate to the "best interest of the child" standard, equal rights (especially between genders), and changing international trends in family law. The Chief Justice also addresses problems concerning lack of legal aid funding and an increase in unrepresented litigants. The Chief Justice explains that these issues and problems can best be dealt with through legislative reform as well as family court reform. Where there is an influx of additional resources better preparing judges to deal specifically with those seeking justice in the family court, these additional resources should also lead to a greater general understanding of current trends in the community. Chief Justice Elias asserts that without community support, these issues cannot be resolved.     

Building Bridges for Babies in Foster Care: The Babies Can't Wait Initiative

In 2001, the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, chaired by New York State's Chief Judge Judith Kaye, developed the Babies Can't Wait Initiative to maximize the well‐being and permanency prospects of infants in foster care. This court‐based innovation became a path to healthy development for babies in foster care, a bridge to unprecedented collaboration among the New York City Family Court, child welfare system, and service providers and merged knowledge about child development with court and child welfare practice. This article tells the story of the Babies Can't Wait Initiative—its creation, implementation, successes, and lessons.     

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE ADDRESS

The William H. Rehnquist Award is one of the most celebrated judicial honors in the country. It is given each year to a state court judge who demonstrates the “highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics.” The 2008 recipient, Jonathan Lippman, was recently appointed and confirmed as Chief Judge of the State of New York. Chief Judge Lippman was previously the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the New York State Supreme Court. He was appointed New York's Chief Administrative Judge by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and served from January 1996 to May 2007 and was responsible for the operation of a court system with a $2.4 billion budget, 1300 state‐paid judges, 2300 town and village judges, and 16,000 nonjudicial personnel. Among his numerous professional activities, Chief Judge Lippman served as president of the Conference of State Court Administrators from 2005 to 2006 and was the vice‐chair of the National Center for State Courts from 2005 to 2006, where he was a member of the Board of Directors from 2003 to 2007. During his tenure, Chief Judge Lippman has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2006 Fund For Modern Courts Cyrus R. Vance Tribute for Vision, Integrity and Dedication to the Fair Administration of Justice Personified by Cyrus R. Vance (November 27, 2006); the New York County Lawyers’ Association Conspicuous Service Award in Recognition of Many Years of Outstanding Public Service (September 28, 2006); and the Award for Excellence in Public Service of the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (January 24, 2006). Chief Judge Lippman received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Relations from New York University, Washington Square College, where he graduated cum laude in 1965. He also received his J.D. from New York University in 1968. Below is the speech he delivered after accepting the William H. Rehnquist Award from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts.     

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY FAMILY ISSUES IN THE ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

Justice 2002, a strategic agenda for the Arizona court system over the next five years, has the goal to build public trust confidence in the Arizona courts. A focus of Justice 2002 is the protection of children, families, and communities. One of the number of projects that have been initiated is the establishment of The Committee to Study Family Issues in the Superior Court (Committee). On October 22, 1997, Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket established the Committee and charged the members to: "[E]xamine the manner in which cases involving family issues, including cases involving minor children, presently are processed and determined in the Superior Court,… leading to improvement in the manner in which these cases are resolved in the court system; and report to the Arizona Judicial Council its findings and recommendations…" This article is a summarization of the Final Report presented to the Arizona Judicial Council (AJC) in December, 1998. The reader will find that the report is rather general. The Committee has functioned under the assumption that an implementation committee would be formed to work out the details, should the AJC choose to adopt the recommendation to establish a Family Court in Arizona.     

Preserving the Law’s Coherence: Citizens United v. FEC and Stare Decisis

In addition to striking down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that limited the amount of money corporations and unions could spend on independent expenditures, Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, an action that stands in contrast to the principle of stare decisis. This article analyzes the discussions of stare decisis in the various Citizens United opinions and compares these discussions to existing scholarly debate on the proper role of stare decisis in constitutional law. It also examines citations and discussions of Citizens United in state supreme court and federal circuit court of appeals cases to analyze how the justices’ discussions of stare decisis in Citizens United have influenced lower courts. The article concludes that the Citizens United opinions that discussed stare decisis — particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion and Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrence — are highly problematic for a number of reasons. The applications of stare decisis in the opinions were also flawed. Citizens United has thus made it even easier for lower courts to abandon stare decisis and overturn precedent.     

The Roberts Court and Police Practices: The Impact of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in Police Practices Cases

In police practices cases, the Supreme Court decides issues that determine when the law enforcement interest in solving crimes must give way to the interest of individuals to be left alone by the government. The replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist with John Roberts and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito has now been in place for more than four terms. The time is appropriate to assess the likely impact of these two new members of the Court on police practices cases. This article examines that question by analyzing both the police practices opinions written by Roberts and Alito while they served on U.S. Courts of Appeals and their opinions while on the Supreme Court through the 2008-09 term. The conclusion is that the previous pattern of the police prevailing in the vast majority of these cases is unlikely to change. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that Chief Justice Roberts is aligning himself closely with Justice Scalia in these cases and may be setting the stage for a significant modification or even elimination of the exclusionary rule.     

STRATEGIES AND NEED FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of New York delivered the following address to the Millennium Conference of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in Washington, D.C., on November 15, 1999. In it, she describes the development of the philosophy of the family court in the past century. Judge Kaye describes the family court's transition from reliance on social science to the incorporation of procedural due process guarantees in the Gault decision. She suggests that a further transformation is required to meet the needs of children and families in the 21st century. Judge Kaye proposes that in the next millennium the family court abandon the "remote adjudicator" judge who evolved after Gault to a "problem-solving model of judging… a judge who looks at the issues that are driving the caseload, who looks at the results that are being achieved, and who uses a hands-on style to figure out how we might do better both in individual cases and on a systemic level."
The New York Times described Chief Justice Kaye as, "A dedicated and effective reformer of the state's sprawling court system. Each of her hard won changes has had a positive impact." Chief Judge Kaye recently received the National Center for State Courts' William H. Rhenquist Award for Judicial Excellence in November 1999. On the occasion of the award, Roger K. Warren, president of the National Center, observed about her,"There are many who are working hard to better process the many cases that come before the state courts, but there are few working an harder or more successfully to better serve the people who use the state courts."     

从Gubisch案看欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定

国际诉讼竞合的认定是解决国际民商事管辖权冲突的先决条件。通过对欧共体法院一则判例的分析,指出,欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定趋向于持宽松的态度,而且,这种宽松的认定方法已被目前的国际立法和司法判例所吸收和支持。     

Considering the Meaning of Wisconsin Right to Life for the Corporate Free-Speech Movement

The test for determining the “functional equivalency of express advocacy” established by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007 could well signal a propitious turning point for the corporate free-speech movement—efforts to develop First Amendment protection for corporate political media spending. The test creates the potential to undermine the doctrine the Supreme Court of the United States constructed in support of more than a century of legislative judgment seeking to wall off the corrupting force of such spending from candidate elections. This article assesses that potential through analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., in which the Chief Justice established that test. His test attracted sharp criticism from so many other justices that the case may offer less than clear guidance for lower courts on its rationale. But the fact that there can be no confusion as to its holding would seem to offer reason for optimism to corporate interests in similar cases.     

论英国法院的止诉禁令

分析止诉禁令与仲裁的关系,归纳申请伦敦仲裁一方当事人面对另一方在其他国家法院起诉的对策,探讨《布鲁塞尔规则》对英国法院就欧盟法院诉讼作出止诉禁令的冲击后,提出保护伦敦仲裁与针对the"Front Com or"案可以考虑的6个对策及向英国法院申请止诉禁令的原则等。     

The Courts,Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Illness: The Case of Dwight Lamon Jones

Through the lens of the high-profile spree killing perpetrated by Dwight Lamon Jones in 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona, this article examines the way the criminal and civil courts grappled with assessing the significance, extent, and outcome of the IPV and abuse directed at Dr. Connie Jones, Dwight Jones’s former wife. The case is unusual, not least because Dr. Jones had an upper middle-class income and numerous resources IPV victims do not normally enjoy. Nevertheless, she felt the courts let her family down. Journalists, victim advocates, and others also criticized the Arizona courts. The article outlines the spree killing and the criticisms of the courts, narrates Jones over a period of nine years including the IPV and mental illness, and, through the work of the Study Committee convened by Arizona Chief Justice Bales, explores the potential use of IPV risk assessments in the courts, particularly the family court, and related matters. It concludes with recommendations regarding possible preventive interventions in IPV cases, including those addressing mental illness.     

Adolescent satanist: A sensible law enforcement approach

A considerable amount of attention has been given by the media to the perceived increase in the amount of juvenile Satanic involvement. However, there is very little evidence of a national epidemic of this type of criminal activity. This article discusses the types of actual adolescent involvement seen in the United States as well as the various points of view on this topic. It is hoped that this information will assist law enforcement in their understanding of this phenomenon and better prepare them to handle it. Dr. Gordon A. Crews is a member of the Criminal Justice faculty in the Social & Behavioral Sciences Department of Midlands Technical College in Colombia, South Carolina, where he teaches courses in police administration, corrections, criminology and ethics. He earned a Ph.D. in Elementary Education, a Graduate Certificate in Alcohol & Drug Studies and a Bachelor of Science and Masters degrees in Criminal Justice from the University of South Carolina. His dissertation examined historical perspectives of school disturbance in the United States. Prior to teaching, Dr. Crews worked in law enforcement as a bloodhound officer & trainer, field training officer and criminal investigatior; in corrections as a training and accreditation manager; and in insurance fraud as an investigator. His current research and academic interests include issues surrounding juvenile delinquency, school violence and juvenile arbitration. He has most recently co-authored a textbook entitledFaces of Violence in America, published by Simon & Schuster. Dr. Reid H. Montgomery, Jr., is an Associate Professor in the College of Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina and co-author of five books. He joined the USC faculty after service as a federal Probation officer with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under Chief Judge John J. Sirica. Prior to graduate study, he served on active duty with the 3rd Infantry (Old Guard) at Ft. Meyer, Virginia. He has a B.S., M.Ed., and Ph.D. from the University of South Carolina where his dissertation analyzed attitudes leading to prison riots. Named in 1984 as Educator of the Year by the Southern Association of Criminal Justice Educators, Dr. Montgomery has pursued post-doctoral study at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.     

International agreements

This article discusses the place of non liquet in the statute and practice of the International Court of Justice. It argues that although there is no prohibition of non liquet in the statute of the court, the completeness of the court of international law in article 38(1) of the statute makes no room for the court to declare non liquet in practice. The author argues that the inclusion of general principles of law and judicial decisions in article 38(1) makes the sources of international law available to the court complete, thereby affording the court the means to avoid non liquet through judicial creativity.     

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO—A FAMILY COURT REFLECTION

This article, adapted from the keynote address delivered at the Hofstra University School of Law Family Law Review Annual Banquet on March 24, 2011, focuses on the impact of the Family Law Review, the need to improve the stature of the family court, and shares excepts of letters written by members of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children regarding their passion for working in the fields of child welfare and in the family court.     

Child witnesses in criminal court

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic rise in public and professional concern regarding the special needs of children as witnesses in the court setting. This study was conducted to examine characteristics of criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses that were adjudicated through a trial conviction, trial acquittal, or guilty plea, from among cases that went to court in a 12-month period in nine judicial circuits in three states. Three hundred sixteen criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses were examined. The vast majority, of these cases involved sexual crimes against children. The results indicated that relatively few (16.8%) adjudicated cases were resolved through a trial proceeding. Sentencing varied from state to state and as a function of the disposition of the case. Future research should be conducted prospectively to determine (a) whether cases involving children as witnesses in criminal court are prosecuted at lower rates than cases involving adults and (b) the reasons that cases leave the criminal justice system prior to any court actions.This research was supported by State Justice Institute grant No. 88-11J-D-064. Points of view or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.     

Domestic Sexual Assault: A New Opportunity for Court Response

Based on research conducted for the State Justice Institute, this article examines the invisibility of domestic sexual assault—also known as intimate partner sexual assault or spousal, wife, or marital rape—from the perspective of community and court responses to domestic violence and sexual assault. The article identifies the consequences of invisibility of domestic sexual assault, including the potential for lethality, and offers suggestions to courts for improving outcomes for victims and perpetrators. Areas explored include data collection and analysis, judicial leadership, and specialization in victim response systems, law enforcement and prosecution, court management, and offender intervention.     

The Unpatriotism of the Economic Constitution? Rights to Free Movement and their Impact on National and European Identity

Abstract:  Instead of the political reading of the EU Constitution adopted by advocates of constitutional patriotism, this article examines the European economic constitution. The four single market freedoms can be used by the Court of Justice to strike down Member State laws which represent deeply held aspects of national cultural identity. The article examines whether the court does in fact act in this way and proceeds to argue that the issue of identity protection does not stop with the court. In those policy areas where the court is more interventionist, and its case-law is perceived as an identity threat, one is likely to find binding Treaty-based derogations. Where, in contrast, the effect of the court's case-law poses less of a threat, one is more likely to see non-binding declarations. The article examines a number of policy areas in which specific cultural derogations and declarations are to be found, including abortion, property acquisition, football and alcohol control.     

A contractual model of the voting behavior of the supreme court: The role of the chief justice

Political scientists have long debated the role of the Supreme Court in public policymaking. Much of the debate has centered around the issue of judicial independence from political factors. Despite a rather extensive debate in the literature, the question of independence has rarely been subjected to systematic testing. This paper examines the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in linking decisions of the Court to the desires of Congress. Specifically, the paper focuses on the role of the Supreme Court Chief Justice as an agent of Congress that reacts to budgetary signals sent by the Congress. The resulting relationship between budgets allocated to the Court and decisions reached by the Court are analyzed from 1946 to 1988.     

Family Court Enhancement Project: Improving Access to Justice

In 2013, Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District was one of four courts in the country selected by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women to receive a Family Court Enhancement Project (FCEP) grant, a multiyear demonstration initiative designed to build the capacity of court systems and partner stakeholders to improve child custody decision making in cases involving domestic violence. The FCEP enabled the project sites to explore, implement, and assess new and innovative court and noncourt procedures and practices. This article is an exploration of the outcomes of this project.