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     

Enforcing Desegregation: A Case Study of Federal District Court Power and Social Change in Macon County Alabama

This case study of Lee v. Macon County Board of Education demonstrates that a federal district court in Alabama, enforcing Brown v. Board of Education, brought about significant social change despite constraints on the courts. The court's application of Brown played a decisive role in ending the racial caste system in this Alabama Black Belt county. The court, by adding the U.S. Department of Justice as a party, overcame constraints that had precluded the executive branch from pursuing school desegregation. Change came through the courts before Congress legislated against school segregation. Seekers of social change must evaluate the constraints on the courts relative to the constraints on the other branches and levels of government.     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

The Limits of Senatorial Courtesy

Because of senatorial courtesy, scholars typically assume that presidents defer to home state senators from their party when selecting judges for the federal courts. We challenge this view, arguing that presidents face structural incentives that encourage them to consult broadly with senators across the partisan and ideological spectrums in choosing nominees. Using new data on the fate of judicial vacancies on the federal district courts between 1947 and 1998, we show how institutional and political forces increase interested senators' leverage in choosing federal judges. Senatorial courtesy, we conclude, has its limits, given presidents' incentives to consult with institutionally empowered senators in selecting nominees.     

Faith‐Based Programs for Reentry Courts: A Summary of Issues and Recommendations

In 2002, the Bush Administration directed the Department of Justice to include faith‐based organizations in its distribution of funds earmarked for programs targeting the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse. Among the initiatives most likely to be affected by this new policy are reentry court programs that endeavor to reintegrate juvenile delinquents into their communities by placing them within local neighborhood‐based programs. However, reentry court personnel and leaders of faith‐based organizations are likely to encounter numerous challenges as they try to establish appropriate programming. In this article, we discuss the current understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence governing the federal funding of faith‐based organizations and summarize key issues identified by a National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' workgroup on faith‐based programming that are necessary for including faith‐based organizations within a reentry court's continuum of care. We also discuss several concerns that reentry court personnel and faith‐based organizations should consider as they seek to maximize the impact of their programs.     

Affirmed: A Study of Criminal Appeals and Decision-Making Norms in a California Court of Appeal

The work of state intermediate appellate courts is often described as “correcting legal errors” and “supervising” trial courts. But what do these labels mean in practice? This article explores the intermediate appellate process through a study of criminal appeals in a California Court of Appeal. Part I describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, part II draws upon interviews with justices of the Court of Appeal to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The basic decision norms described by the justices are norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decision making apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the “error correction” and “supervision” labels imply. Part III explores the implications of the case study for appellate policy.     

Precedent, Parity, and Racial Discrimination: A Federal/State Comparison of the Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Questions regarding Brown v. Board of Education 's short-term effect remain unanswered, particularly its comparative impact on federal district courts and state supreme courts. We test this through an analysis of racial discrimination cases in those venues in the twenty-year period bifurcated by the decision in May 1954. Our findings suggest that while federal district courts and state courts were similarly unresponsive to discrimination claims before that date, Brown exerted a significant impact on district court decisions but had little influence at the state level. Furthermore, a third pattern was found in federal appellate courts, where discrimination claims had a high likelihood of pro-minority decisions even before the Supreme Court directive.     

Delay reduction in the federal courts: Rule 50(b) and the Federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974

During the 1970s, 94 federal district courts implemented two major policy initiatives, Rule 50(b) of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Speedy Trial Act, that were designed in Washington to combat delay in the processing of federal criminal cases. Both of these initiatives established a national priority of delay reduction in criminal cases, encouraged local district court planning for delay reduction; established reporting procedures for monitoring local compliance, and provided for the determination of quantitative goals for the time to disposition of criminal cases. Neither initiative mandated specific activities for delay reduction; this determination was left to the discretion of local federal district courts. This research examines the effectiveness of Rule 50(b) and the Speedy Trial Act by constructing a 150-month time series of three measures of case processing time. A multiple-intervention time-series model found that both of these initiatives contributed to the dramatic reduction in the time to disposition in federal criminal cases. These effects persisted after controls for changes in case characteristics and judicial resources were introduced.Points of view expressed in this research are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes

Motor third-liability insurance is compulsory in the European Union. We examine the behaviour of Spanish appellate courts in the context of motor liability insurance and pay particular attention to four characterising features. Specifically, we investigate (1) how the appellate court interprets the rules for updating the financial compensation when the courts’ ruling is made in a different year to that in which the motor accident occurred; (2) the response of the appellate court when its legal medical evaluation differs from the court’s decision; (3) whether the appellate court modifies the criteria when the insurance company was not charged with interest for delaying payment in the first instance; (4) whether the fault allocated by trial courts is revised by the appellate court. We apply a multi-categorical selection mechanism to deal with samples that are potentially non-random. This allows us to separately consider the characteristics of victim’s and the insurer’s decisions to appeal. The results indicate that disputing agents have significantly different appeal functions, where insurers show a more effective and consistent behaviour than victims.     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

New York Lead-Paint Case Update

The contaminated water supply in Flint, Michigan, highlighted lead issues in a relatively new context: drinking water. Lead-paint lawsuits, however, have filled court calendars for many years in many jurisdictions. This article examines a variety of recent lead-paint decisions issued by courts in New York—from trial level, to appellate, to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. As these cases suggest, lead-paint complaints against landlords and property owners are likely to continue to be filed in New York courts for quite some time to come.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Federal antitrust jurisdiction in peer review cases: the Pinhas decision

In Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, the United States Supreme Court by a narrow majority found that the exclusion of an ophthalmologist from a hospital in Los Angeles had a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to establish federal jurisdiction under the Sherman Act. In resolving a split among the federal circuit courts of appeal, the Court applied the broad jurisdictional test from McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. to peer review proceedings. Despite many ambiguities in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens and a scathing dissent by Justice Scalia, the effect of Pinhas will be to increase the suits in federal court on antitrust grounds brought by aggrieved medical staff members and applicants denied appointments or privileges, and to decrease, if not eliminate, the likelihood of preliminary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. This, in turn, should serve to emphasize the importance of complying with the Health Care Quality Improvement Act in order to obtain immunity from damages under federal antitrust and state laws.     

Understanding Judicial Hierarchy: Reversals and the Behavior of Intermediate Appellate Judges

One of the central controversies in the judicial behavior literature is the extent to which judges' ability to act according to their ideological preferences is affected by their location in the judicial hierarchy. Judges on intermediate appellate courts have different decisionmaking environments than high court judges. As a result, the goals of lower appellate court judges may differ from those of their superiors: the quest for legal accuracy may compete with the desire to pursue policy preferences. Analysis of the reversal rate of the U.S. circuit courts of appeals offers insight into the extent to which these judges balance the pressures of their own policy preferences with the desire to achieve the legally accurate result in cases they decide.     

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

This article presents the findings of the first research study of the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), a prison-based immigration court system run by the U.S. Department of Justice. Although the IHP has existed for four decades, little is publicly known about the program's origin, development, or significance. Based on original analysis of archival records, this study makes three central contributions. First, it traces the origin and growth of the IHP within federal, state, and municipal correctional facilities. Notably, although the IHP began in 1980 as a program to deport Cuban asylum seekers held in civil detention in an Atlanta prison, it now operates to deport noncitizens serving prison sentences in twenty-three federal prisons, nineteen state prison systems, and a few municipal jails. Second, this article uncovers the crucial role that prison-based immigration courts have played in shaping the design of carceral institutions around the priorities of an immigration system that primarily targets Latinos for deportation. Third, this article shows how immigration courts embedded in carceral spaces have served as influential, yet overlooked, incubators of changes to immigration law and practice that today apply to all immigration courts, not just the IHP. These findings have important implications for contemporary understandings of the relationship between immigration detention, racialized control of migration, and penal punishment.     

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.     

Constitutionalising Subsidiarity in Integrated Markets: The Case of Tobacco Regulation in the European Union

Abstract:  The article establishes three propositions. First, if a constitution establishes the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as legal principles, questions of competencies are closely tied up with questions of regulatory policy. This means that the Treaty carves out a powerful role for the Court of Justice to assess the jurisdictional reasonableness of market intervention when reviewing whether the EU was legally competent to act. Second, general scepticism about courts being able to play such a demanding role in policing jurisdictional boundaries in federal systems are unjustified in the EU. The new procedure established in the Constitutional Treaty, which is likely to be included in any renegotiated constitutional settlement, involves national Parliaments and the Commission building a written record addressing the relevant policy issues on which the court can base its review. Additionally national courts serve as an external check on the Court of Justice, disciplining the Court of Justice to focus on taking competencies seriously or facing the prospect of national courts disapplying EU law on the grounds that it was enacted ultra vires. Third, even though there are some promising points of departure in its case law, the Court of Justice has not yet adopted a doctrinal framework that effectively operationalises the Treaty's commitment to subsidiarity and proportionality in the context of the common market.     

Type of counsel and the outcome of criminal appeals: A research note

Previous studies have focused on type of counsel and case outcome at trial court, but only a few have done so at the appellate level. The purpose of this research note is to provide some insight into the influence of type of counsel on the out-come of criminal appeals. Results indicate that in criminal appeals from two Florida trial courts to an intermediate appellate court type of counsel was non-significant in predicting the court’s decision. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

The advantages held by haves over have nots in litigation have long fascinated scholars, with a long line of research revealing that litigant status often affects litigant resources, experience, and chances of overall success from trial courts to appellate courts. What has received considerably less attention, however, is how this status affects the decision to appeal. Bringing a new perspective to this important area holding implications for the shape and content of the judicial hierarchy, this study analyzes the decision of the losing federal district court litigant to appeal to the US courts of appeals. Utilizing an original database containing a sample of federal district court civil cases decided between 2000 and 2004, the results indicate, as predicted, that litigant status differentials affect whether there will be an appeal. This influence is further magnified when conditioned upon the relative costs of the appeal. These findings provide one of the first detailed examinations of litigant status and appeals coming from US trial courts and, simultaneously, offer the first empirical evidence to date that business litigants, like previously known government parties, are advantaged over individuals when deciding whether to appeal.     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.