Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Lower courts in the United States are generally responsive to specific precedents and trends in the decisionmaking of their judicial superiors. In this article, we ask why. We test one popular explanation—that compliance can be attributed to judges' fear of having their decisions reversed—through an analysis of search and seizure cases decided in the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1961 and 1990. Since the Supreme Court cannot reverse a decision unless it agrees to review it, we ask whether circuit judges are more likely to decide as the Supreme Court would be expected to when they face cases that are otherwise more likely to be reviewed by the Court. Finding that they are not, we conclude that fear of reversal cannot account for widespread circuit court compliance in these cases, nor, presumably, more generally. More broadly, our findings point to the importance of factors apart from supervisors and the threat of sanctions in determining subordinates' compliance.     

The Institutional Sources of State Success in Federalism Litigation before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's recent federalism decisions are the clearest example of the states' improving legal fortunes in litigation against the federal government. Reducing the dramatic shift in the Court's federalism jurisprudence to the attitudinal voting of individual justices ignores the influence on the Court's decision making from broader institutional developments in American politics and domestic policy. These developments include: (1) the diminishing effectiveness of the states' lobbying power in the federal policymaking arena; (2) the increasing effectiveness of litigation by states' attorneys general in the federal judicial arena; and (3) the convergence of these developments resulting in a pro-state Supreme Court agenda.     

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Right to Bargain Collectively: The Implications of the Health Services and Support case in Canada and Beyond

In June 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada expressly overruled20 years of jurisprudence that interpreted the freedom of associationas excluding collective bargaining. This about-face by the SupremeCourt was unexpected. What gave rise to this remarkable decisionand what does it portend for the role of the courts in labourrelations in Canada and beyond? The recent successes beforecourts have led some observers to suggest that it may now bea propitious time for a coordinated and proactive litigationstrategy to vindicate labour's collective rights. This articleoffers some preliminary answers to these broader questions andissues by focussing on the Supreme Court's decision in the HealthServices and Support case.     

Roe v. Wade and the history of abortion regulation

In "Roe," the Supreme Court found that the privacy right in the 14th amendment's view of "personal liberty" encompasses a woman's right to choose an abortion. The Court found that "abortion is a fundamental right." These conclusions are mistaken. The Court's analysis of "the history of abortion regulation" had a lot of errors and did not consider the state of technology in which abortion evolved. Sir Edward Coke, a 16th and 17th century jurist, said that abortion was a "great misprison." Quickening, the point at which a woman feels life, was used to determine fetal viability. State courts, therefore, viewed "abortion after quickening as common law crime." By the end of 1868, 30 to the then 37 states had passed laws restricting abortion. The Supreme Court said that the 19th century laws were passed to guard the mother's health "against the dangers of unsafe operation." In the 15 months before "Roe," 5 state courts said that their abortion laws were constitutional. They said that this was "intended to protect the lives of unborn children." Therefore, the Court's belief that "the state courts focused on the State's interest in protecting "the health of the mother" was unexplainable. The Court said that in many states the woman couldn't "be prosecuted for self-abortion." 17 states did "incriminate the woman's participation in her own abortion," but the Court did not note this. The Court's premise about the greater hazards of late abortions is mistaken. The states were concerned, in the late 19th century, about whether the attempted abortion caused the death of a child. The "right to an abortion" can only be seen as "fundamental" if it is "implicit" in the "ordered liberty" concept or "deeply rooted" in US tradition and history. "Roe" struck down the abortion laws of all 50 states and should be overturned.     

Measuring Reed’s Reach: Content Discrimination in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals After Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Commentators and justices on the Supreme Court of the United States speculated when the Court delivered its opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert in 2015 that the case would dramatically reshape First Amendment law. This article analyzes Reed’s impact to date in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. The article demonstrates that, although Reed has been consequential in some circuits, it has not been the basis of any First Amendment revolution. Indeed, the research supports the conclusion that many circuit courts seem to be actively working to narrow Reed’s reach. Moreover, the article concludes that Reed did little to clarify — and in some ways made worse — what has been a problematic doctrine for decades.     

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.     

A New Stage in the Functioning of the Comrades' Courts

On October 23, 1963, the Presidium of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet passed a decree "On Additions and Amendments to the Statute on the Comrades' Courts." This decree is of exceptional importance in further elevating the role of these courts in educating the working people for communism.     

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court.

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.     

Injunctions and the Public Interest in Fair Use Cases After eBay

The indeterminacy of the fair use doctrine can frustrate those who wish to use copyrighted material to create something new. When coupled with the ready availability of injunctive relief for plaintiffs in infringement suits, this uncertainty can cause a chilling effect that prevents artists, scholars and others from asserting their fair use rights to the fullest. This article examines procedural changes regarding the award of injunctions that were mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. and extended to copyright cases by the Second and Ninth United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. It concludes that the procedural safeguards instituted in these cases will help shift the balance of power in fair use cases away from copyright plaintiffs to protect defendants with credible fair use claims and better serve the public interest.     

The Politics of Palliative Care and the Ethical Boundaries of Medicine: Gonzales v. Oregon as a Cautionary Tale

The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-decision in Gonzales v. Oregon is the latest defeat for the Bush administration in its sustained attack on Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. Both the majority opinion and the major dissent in Oregon provide an opportunity to assess the dangers inherent in allowing a political agenda that emphasizes the sanctity of life and minimizes professional ethical obligations to overshadow quality patient care at the end of life.     

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.     

法律解释如何统一——关于司法解释权的法律统一解释功能的思考

目前我国宪法解释权以及法律统一解释权处于一种权力真空状态,人们希望最高人民法院能填补这一权力空白.然而根据我国宪法所规范的国家权力结构,最高人民法院是无力承担起这一重任的.最高人民法院的法律统一解释功能是有限的,只能统一各级法院的审判解释.我国的司法改革应着眼于通过构建合理的审判制度、判例制度以及合理划分最高人民法院与各级法院解释范围,完善最高人民法院的司法统一解释功能.     

日本涉外民商事管辖权制度初探

日本法院分为四级简易法院、地方法院、高等法院和最高法院。《日本民事诉讼法》中的许多规则用于确定国际管辖权问题都不是很恰当,判例在国际民商事管辖权领域里起着相当重要的作用。最高法院在1981年10月16日做出的判决是关于日本法院国际管辖权的指导性判决,它确立了国际民商事管辖权的一般标准,即“正义和合理”标准。管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面法院选择协议、仲裁协议以及主权和外交豁免。在实践中,下级法院创设了有关国际管辖权的一项规则,即“特殊情势主义”。对于外国的未决诉讼、不方便法院原则、择地行诉和禁诉命令制度,日本的立法或实践以及学者的观点富有特色。     

Will the Supreme Court finally eliminate ERISA preemption?

David Trueman's article reviews the history of ERISA preemption by analyzing seminal Supreme Court cases and predicts the future of ERISA preemption in his analysis of recent federal case law. Traditionally, the ability to hold a managed care entity responsible for its actions has been hampered by a strict interpretation of the preemption clauses of ERISA but as the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has evolved and loosened, several federal courts have allowed suits against managed care companies to go forward. Conflict among the federal circuits has arisen and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to two cases from Texas in order to clarify ERISA preemption. Mr. Trueman discusses the future of ERISA preemption in light of these decisions.     

RESPONSE TO TROXEL v. GRANVILLE

In today's world, children grow up in families that take many different forms, and society can no longer consider the traditional nuclear family the normal or optimal family structure. As a result, in cases of divorce, courts are increasingly relying on the results of psychological research when awarding custody and visitation privileges. In contrast to recent trends, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority decision in Troxel v. Granville favors biological parents' rights over the psychological interests of children. This article discusses the potential contributions of attachment theory to the contest between biology and psychology in America's divorce courts.     

FAMILY COURT ASSESSMENT:Dissolution of Marriage in Florida—Preliminary Assessment Findings

To obtain the empirical data necessary for the development of an effective family court case management model, staff from Florida's Office of the State Courts Administrator undertook a comprehensive assessment of (a) the movement of dissolution of marriage cases through the court system, (b) the factors affecting case flow and time frames, and (c) the system's responsiveness to the families and children it serves. Findings from this study are guiding the Florida Supreme Court's Family Court Steering Committee in its efforts to design an effective case management system that includes intake and referral, differentiated case management and tracking, case monitoring, and alternative dispute resolution.     

错误的生命之诉的法律适用

错误的生命之诉是近年来出现的一种新型诉讼。目前,法国、美国五个州的最高法院准许了原告就此提起的财产损害赔偿请求,而英国、美国19个州的最高法院、加拿大的两个省、德国联邦宪法法院均驳回了原告的损害赔偿请求。但实际上,全部或部分驳回原告方诉讼请求所持的理由并不成立,原告的确受到了侵害,受侵害的客体是拥有充分知情的父母的利益。     

Organizational factors that contribute to police deadly force liability

Police use of deadly force is a significant concern for municipal policymakers and law enforcement agencies. Following U.S. Supreme Court case law, police agencies and municipal entities may be held civilly liable under Section 1983 for force that is not objectively reasonable; for failure to train; and for policies, customs, and practices that cause constitutional injury. This article analyzes eighty-six cases from the U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals on Section 1983 liability regarding police use of deadly force. The article focuses specifically on police firearm use in deadly force situations, highlighting how managerial disorganization and administrative breakdown impacts departmental decision making. Principles of management, such as division of labor, hierarchy of authority, span of control, unity of command, and communication are used to explain bad shootings that lead to potential police liability.     

The Politics of Appointment and the Federal Courts'Role in Regulating America: U.S. Courts of Appeals Judgeships from T.R. to F.D.R.

Historians and political scientists have noted that appointments of judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals are not determined by senatorial courtesy alone. What has not been adequately explained is why and when a president defers to a senator's choice rather than seek to control the selection. This article attempts to understand the politics of federal appellate court appointments. The author first identifies a major change in the work of the courts of appeals during the years 1900-1945—the growth in review of the actions of newly created federal regulatory agencies. Then, by examining Justice Department files and presidential correspondence, he discoveres three patterns of appointment emerging in the same period. The patterns vary with presidential perceptions of the role of the federal government and of the courts of appeals' ability to affect accomplishment of administration goals. Appointments during the first years of the presidencies of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and during the Harding and Coolidge administrations were dominated by patronage concerns. Those administrations yielded to the recommendations of senators and demonstrated no interest in the policy-making potential of these courts. In the two other patterns the White House played a more active role, with senators more often deferring to the president's selection. Concerns about professionalism dominated selections in Taft's and Hoover's administrations: because they recognized the policy importance of those judgeships but saw the role of government as limited, they sought judicial craftsmen who would make policy only incrementally. Policy concerns dominated selections during Wilson's administration and the latter years of both the Roosevelts' administrations: Justice Department officials screened nominees to determine their policy orientation, because federal appellate court judgeships were perceived as crucial policy positions that could affect the president's ability to implement his reform programs.     

Plessy as "Passing": Judicial Responses to Ambiguously Raced Bodies in Plessy v. Ferguson

The Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is infamous for its doctrine of "separate but equal," which gave constitutional legitimacy to Jim Crow segregation laws. What is less-known about the case is that the appellant Homer Plessy was, by all appearances, a white man. In the language of the Court, his "one-eighth African blood" was "not discernible in him." This article analyzes Plessy as a story of racial "passing." The existence of growing interracial populations in the nineteenth century created difficulties for legislation designed to enforce the separation of the races. Courts were increasingly called upon to determine the racial identity of particular individuals. Seen as a judicial response to racial ambiguity, Plessy demonstrates the law's role not only in the treatment of racial groups, but also in the construction and maintenance of racial categories.