State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

A moment in human development: legal protection, ethical standards and social policy on the selective non-treatment of handicapped neonates

Selective non-treatment decisions involving severely handicapped neonates have recently come under renewed judicial and legislative scrutiny. In this Article, the Author examines the legal, ethical and social considerations attendant to the non-treatment decision. In Part II of this Article the Author discusses the predominant ethical viewpoints relating to this issue and proposes a new moral standard based on personal interests. Part III presents a survey of the jurisprudence relating to selective non-treatment decisions. Parts IV and V of this Article provide a critical examination of the recently enacted Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, a federal legislative initiative designed to regulate treatment decisions relating to handicapped infants. The Author suggests that the ethical standards and treatment criteria proposed in this Article may prove useful to courts seeking to balance the handicapped neonate's constitutional right to privacy with the requirements of the new federal law.     

MOVIN' ON

In Canada, relocation cases are governed by the 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz , thanks to Canada's constitutional and judicial structure. Gordon rejects presumptions or burdens, mandating an individualized best interests inquiry in every case. Since 1996, appeal courts have done little to develop or refine this approach. Trial level decisions do reveal certain trends, allowing moves in about 60% of cases, but more often for "primary caregivers" and much less often in shared custody cases. Federal custody reform proposals to date have not addressed relocation issues.     

The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and national courts revisited

This article analyzes how the judicial politics sparked by the European Union's (EU) legal development have evolved over time. Existing studies have traced how lower national courts began cooperating with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to apply EU law because this empowered them to challenge government policies and the decisions of their domestic judicial superiors. We argue that the institutional dynamics identified by this ‘judicial empowerment thesis’ proved self‐eroding over time, incentivizing domestic high courts to reassert control over national judicial hierarchies and to influence the development EU law in ways that were also encouraged by the ECJ. We support our argument by combining an analysis of a dataset of cases referred to the ECJ with comparative case study and interview evidence. We conclude that while these evolving judicial politics signal the institutional maturation of the EU legal order, they also risk weakening the decentralized enforcement of European law.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

徘徊在限权与放权之间——社会转型时期对司法理念的探索

为应对转型时期社会对司法的需求,最高人民法院提出了"能动司法"理念,各级人民法院积极践行,取得了成效,并引发了广泛关注和讨论。能动司法实践中,司法权无序扩张影响了司法的公信力,但能动司法依然是社会转型时期中国的现实选择。我们应当客观评价能动司法理念,承认能动司法的限度,防止能动带来的负面影响。探寻新的司法理念,以继续推进司法体制改革适应社会发展。     

Judges as Readers,Authors and Dialecticians: Legal Interpretation in the EC<Emphasis Type="Italic">t</Emphasis>HR Cases on Mental Disability

The wording of major human rights texts—constitutions and international treaties—is very similar in those provisions, which guarantee everyone the right to family, privacy, protection against discrimination and arbitrary detention, and the right to access the court. However, judges of lower national courts, constitutional judges and judges of the European Court of Human Rights often read the same or seemingly the same texts differently. This difference in interpretation gives rise not only to disputes about the hierarchy of interpretative authorities, but to more general disputes about limits of judicial construction and validity of legal arguments. How it may happen, that the national courts, which apply constitutional provisions or provisions of national legislative acts, which are seemingly in compliance with the international human rights standards, come to different results with the international judges? Do they employ different interpretative techniques, share different values or develop different legal concepts? Do international judges ‘write’ rather than ‘read’ the text of the Convention? Who is, in Plato’s terms, a name-giver and who has a power to define the ‘correctness’ of names? The answers to these questions from the rhetorical and semiotic perspectives are exemplified by the texts of the judicial decisions on the rights of persons with mental disabilities.     

Pluralism,Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine

In this article it will be argued that good use of the instrument of deference might help the EU courts to deal with the situation of pluralism that is currently visible in the European legal order. By means of deferential judicial review, the EU courts can pay due respect to national constitutional traditions and to national legislative and policy choices, thus preventing situations of real conflict. In addition, deference enables the EU courts to take into account the intricacies related to judicial review of norms drafted by co‐equal institutions or by national elected bodies. Although the EU courts already make use of some form of deferential review, they may use the instrument in a clearer and more structured manner. As a basis for the development of a European ‘doctrine of deference’, a comparison will be made with the margin of appreciation doctrine devised by the European Court of Human Rights. Although this doctrine is certainly not fault‐free, it offers a number of advantages in terms of clarity and controllability. If improved and adapted on the basis of theoretical notions of procedural democracy, the doctrine might be put to good use by the EU courts.     

造法性民事诉讼司法解释研究

民事诉讼司法解释具有造法性,其原因是复杂的,它所带来的利弊是多方面的。改革的方案是,在以修法的方式确立符合当今中国社会的各项民事诉讼基本原则的前提下,确认最高人民法院有限的程序规则制定权,其性质为授权立法;同时对最高人民法院制定的程序规则建立备案审查机制,监督司法立法权的行使;禁止地方各级法院的程序规则创制权。     

Justice Without Borders: Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts

In 1980 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals broke with years of legal tradition and ruled that human rights victims could sue their oppressors in federal court—even if the alleged violations occurred outside the country. This court based the extension of its authority on a provision of the 1789 Judiciary Act now referred to as the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). ATCA cases present a unique opportunity to study judicial behavior in the face of separation of powers interests, traditions of judicial restraint, sovereign immunity defenses, and an active internationalist movement to extend human rights guarantees worldwide. Combining legal analysis with quantitative methodology, I find that U.S. federal courts are slowly accepting an internationalist approach to human rights, and that interest groups are largely driving this transformation. Sovereignty concerns and judicial ideology are not conditioning case outcomes, but party resources and separation of powers issues are.     

Law and American Political Development

This essay reviews the recent volume edited by Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (2006), as well as the broader literature by law scholars interested in American Political Development (APD). The Law and APD literature has advanced our knowledge about courts by placing attention on the importance of executive and legislative actors, and by providing political context to our understanding of judicial decision making. But this knowledge would be more powerful if it would embrace the broader APD field's orientation toward the importance of state and institutional autonomy for understanding politics and political change. Law and APD scholars could go further in examining the ways in which courts and judges act institutionally, and how the legal branch as an institution impacts American politics and state-building. In doing so, Law and APD scholars would contribute not only to our understanding of judicial decision making but also to our understanding of the place and importance of courts in American politics.     

The importance of an industrial court in the interpretation of labour statutes

The paper highlights the National Industrial Court of Nigeria’s (NICN) importance over the general courts in the interpretation of labour statutes. It compares the judicial interpretation of some provisions of labour statutes by the general courts in Nigeria (represented herein by the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s interpretation of same provisions) with the interpretation of the NICN of same provisions. It argues that the NICN’s interpretation is more favourable to labour rights than that of the general courts. It makes use of the rules of judicial interpretation and Ronald Dworkin’s discussion on interpretation as a framework and adds to it by comparing the judicial interpretation of some provisions of labour statutes by the general courts with that of the NICN. It noted that the NICN’s interpretation was more purposive and promoted labour rights than that of the general courts. The Supreme Court cases used to represent the position of the general courts were those decided before exclusive jurisdiction on employment and labour matters was conferred on the NICN in 2010. Presently, even though the general courts no more have jurisdiction to hear and interpret employment and labour matters the NICN’s interpretations continues to promote labour rights.     

What Determines Judicial Prestige? An Empirical Analysis for Judges of the Federal Court of Australia

This article examines judicial citations to analyze the determinantsof judicial prestige in the Federal Court of Australia. Firstwe construct two alternative measures of judicial prestige forall current and retired judges of the Federal Court. Second,we regress these measures of judicial prestige on a series ofexplanatory variables covering age on appointment, appointinggovernment, prior experience, which law school the judge attended,how many law review articles the judge has published, gender,and tenure. We compare our results with those of previous studiesthat examine the determinants of judicial influence and prestigein courts in the United States and the High Court of Australia.One of the main contributions of the article is to provide evidencefrom an intermediate appellate court that can be used to testthe general application of findings as to what determines judicialprestige in the United States to courts in other countries withdifferent institutional frameworks.     

Koushal v Naz: Judges Vote to Recriminalise Homosexuality

In Koushal v Naz the Indian Supreme Court overturned a High Court judgment which had declared unconstitutional section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. In doing so, it has rebranded gay and transgendered Indians as criminals. This case note explores some of the structural problems that led to this judgment. The first problem is the transformation of the Indian Supreme Court into a populist, quasi‐legislative, institution that sees itself as a tool of governance. This has put significant pressure on its counter‐majoritarian role. The second relates to the sheer size of the Court's docket (given its wide jurisdiction and lax standing rules), coupled with the Indian legal academy's inability and unwillingness to continuously demand judicial fidelity to the law. These factors have led to the normalisation of unreasoned or poorly‐reasoned judgments and a breakdown of stare decisis.     

DO LOWER COURTS ANTICIPATE CHANGES IN SUPREME COURT POLICIES?: A Few Empirical Notes

This paper takes advantage of the change from the Warren Supreme Court to the Burger Supreme Court to investigate a phenomenon not usually examined in judicial impact research—anticipatory reactions. The research question is whether and under what circumstances federal courts of appeals anticipate changes in policy by the Supreme Court. Changes in the citation of Warren Court civil liberties decisions from the Warren Court era to the early Burger Court era are used to evaluate this question. It is hypothesized that moves away from Warren Court decisions would be greatest for decisions which received minimal support on the Warren Court and for important or salient policies. Contrary to these expectations it was found that during the Burger Court era the number of citations of Warren Court decisions actually increased, the percentage of positive citations increased, and the increases were greatest for decisions receiving minimal voting support on the Warren Court and for decisions classified as important.     

Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court

This article offers a theoretical discussion about courts in “hybrid regimes” that evolve from formerly democratic countries. The evolution toward authoritarianism typically allows governments more latitude to reduce judicial independence and judicial power. Yet, several reasons, including legitimacy costs, a tradition of using courts for judicial adjudication and social control, and even the use of courts for quenching dissent may discourage rulers from shutting down the judicial contestation arena and encourage them instead to appeal to less overbearing measures. This usually leads to a decline of the judiciary's proclivity to challenge the government, especially in salient cases. To illustrate these dynamics, I discuss the rise and fall of judicial power in Venezuela under Chávez's rule, focusing on the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Formerly the most powerful institution in the country's history, the Chamber briefly emerged as an influential actor at the beginning of the regime, but a comprehensive intervention of the judiciary in 2004 further politicized the court and effectively reduced its policy‐making role.     

Judicial approaches to combating ‘revenge porn’: a multi-jurisdictional perspective

This article aims to provide a nuanced articulation of the challenges and complexities associated with the various judicial approaches countenanced across multiple jurisdictions to date toward combating the phenomenon colloquially referred to as ‘revenge porn’. The article’s central argument is that although the scope of several civil causes of action, such as breach of confidence, defamation, copyright and invasion of privacy, have been expanded in recent years to accommodate the evolving dynamics of revenge porn, a number of theoretical and practical issues nonetheless arise, which courts across various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, the UK, the USA, New Zealand and the Commonwealth Caribbean, have struggled to treat with. The article concludes by asserting that notwithstanding the important role played by civil causes of action in vindicating the rights of victims of revenge porn, legislative intervention remains invaluable.     

The Splendors and Miseries of Constitutional Reasoning in Times of Global Crisis: A Critical Look from the Realist Perspectives of Semiotics

The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is the rescue fund that may grant loans to struggling euro zone governments by issuing bonds, collectively by the euro zone members. The implementation of the ESM spawned a lot of legal challenges brought to higher judicial authority in Ireland, Austria, Estonia, Germany and Poland. In the fall of 2012 the ESM was subject to legal analysis in the Estonian National Court, the German Constitutional Court, and in the European Court of Justice. Delivering much anticipated rulings in legal challenges to the legal provisions establishing the ESM, courts avoided upsetting the complex arrangements in question by producing legal decision of direct political import and letting EU bailout measures go forward. In looking over different critical responses, we have seen an argument raised by media and legal scholars, according to which courts’ capitulation before the power of financial markets in the EMS rulings represents “a sign of judicial crisis” that marks the weakness of modern European jurisprudence. In light of their importance, we undertake a preliminary semiotic analysis of the ESM rulings of the Estonian National Court, the German Constitutional Court, and in the European Court of Justice. Our analysis aims at discerning the crucial aspects of those rulings is performed on the basis of different semiotic methodologies combined with the refined ideas of the Scandinavian analytical school of the doctrinal study of law. In traditional legal studies there seems to be a taken for granted assumption that there is one analytical way to dissect judicial reasoning of the supreme courts. This paper argues that the manner of analyzing the constitutional reasoning needs to be congruent with the particular research methodology.     

STATE SUPREME COURT APPLICATIONS OF TROXEL v. GRANVILLE AND THE COURTS' RELUCTANCE TO DECLARE GRANDPARENT VISITATION STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In this article, the author reviews state supreme court applications of Troxel v. Granville , analyzing the impact of the decision on the courts' ongoing efforts to adjudicate visitation disputes between parents and grandparents. Set against a background of legislative recognition of grandparents' rights and judicial uncertainty regarding the appropriate role of nonparents in children's lives, Troxel reaffirmed the constitutional right of parents to direct their children's upbringing. The author argues that state supreme courts evaluating gradparent visitation statutes and seeking to enforce Troxel 's presumption in favor of parents should be more willing to strike down overly broad statutes. Such an approach would be a positive step toward addressing the excessive judicial discretion that the Troxel Court found so problematic, and would signal to state legislatures the need for statutes that both provide for the needs of children and protect parental rights.     

经济体制变迁中的最高人民法院(1949-1978年)

在计划经济体制下 ,最高人民法院的主要任务不是进行具体的经济决策 ,而是以不同形式为政治服务。最高人民法院在中央各机关关系中处于被边缘化的位置 ,甚至审判与行政权力并没有严格的界限。从经济变迁来看 ,计划经济体制导致最高人民法院过于集权化 ,进而加强对下级法院的控制 ;而在市场经济的形成过程中 ,最高人民法院与地方法院的关系需要从集权转向一定程度的分权 ,让各级法院都有一定的公共政策制定权力