Changes in the Federal Courts and Changes Needed on the U.S. Supreme Court: Statement for the Record Public Hearing of the Presidential Commission on the U.S. Supreme Court, June 2021

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Resnik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Presidential Commission ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals How the Federal Cause of Action Relates to Rights, Remedies, and Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Preis
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal cause of action is "analytically distinct" from rights, remedies, and jurisdiction. Yet, just pages away in the U.S. Reports are other cases in which rights, remedies, and jurisdiction all hinge on the existence of a cause of action. What, then, is the proper relationship between these concepts?The goal of this Article is to articulate that relationship. This Article traces the history of the cause of action from eighteenth-century England to its modem usage in the federal courts. This history demonstrates that the federal cause of action is largely distinct from rights, closely related to (and sometimes synonymous with) remedies, and distinct from jurisdiction except where Congress instructs otherwise or the case implicates sovereign immunity. Sorting out these relationships provides several benefits, including refining the doctrine of prudential standing, clarifying the grounds for federal jurisdiction, and dispelling claims that Congress lacks power over certain causes of action.

Courtroom Proceedings in U.S. Federal Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Open Court ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

This article discusses courtroom proceedings in U.S. federal courts. It begins by examining how federal district courts conduct trials. To make clear how these proceedings run it compares what really happens in most trials compared to how Hollywood portrays trials. In addition, it considers several key rights associated with trial proceedings. From there, it considers how federal circuit courts conduct business in open court. A key aspect of this section is how circuit proceedings differ across the country because each circuit has different rules governing arguments. Finally, it assesses the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as how these proceedings may affect the decisions justices make. In each section it provides a descriptive overview of the processes and then discusses current research and direction for future analyses.

The New Adverse-Party Rule Confronts Judicial Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 107-138
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The U.S

This chapter describes the conflicts that arose as the new case-or-controversy requirement came to be seen as in conflict with the broad range of uncontested proceedings that had formed a traditional part of nineteenth-century federal practice. Courts, scholars, and litigants have questioned the power of federal courts to hear bankruptcy proceedings, petitions for naturalized citizenship, applications to approve testimonial immunity, warrant proceedings, petitions for habeas corpus relief, and a range of other matters. So far, at least, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to deploy its case-or-controversy rule to upset established forms of proceeding.

Defining Government Speech: Recent Approaches and the Germaneness Principle

2005 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 398-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward L. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Private Speech ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

In the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have fashioned the -principle that the First Amendment does not limit the government's ability to determine the content of its own messages. Yet the Supreme Court has not defined what is meant by “government speech.” Defined broadly, it may encompass viewpoint-based messages on controversial social issues, privately funded advocacy on behalf of certain industries, and official endorsement of certain ideologies. In the face of this uncertainty, and confronted with numerous recent cases in which the government asserts its right to expression, the U.S. courts of appeal have devised three major approaches to distinguishing government speech from private speech. The Supreme Court touched on aspects of these approaches in an important 2005 opinion, yet significant questions remain about the definitional contours of the Court's developing government speech doctrine.

Not Isolating Isolation

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-116
Author(s):  
Judith Resnik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Federal Prison ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Prison Life ◽  
Prison Systems ◽  
The U.S ◽  
In Cells

This chapter explores the distinctive features of solitary confinement and the ways in which isolation is endemic in the structure of U.S. prisons. It analyze the expansion of solitary confinement, the debate about the lawfulness of the practice in the federal courts, and recent data on the widespread use of solitary confinement in state and federal prison systems. The U.S. Supreme Court has not prohibited the practice but has licensed courts to inquire about whether a particular version imposes an “atypical and significant hardship” on an individual. If such a showing is made, then prisons must provide some procedural buffers against arbitrary placements. Nation-wide data demonstrate that more than 60,000 individuals were, as of 2018, placed in cells for 15 days or more for 22 hours or more. Almost 4,000 people have been so confined for three years or more. Solitary confinement is thus all too “typical” a facet of prison life. Its commonplace occurrence ought not insulate solitary confinement from the conclusion that it is an illicitly cruel practice that debilitates individuals. The complexity of ending solitary confinement terms not only from its widespread use but also from the ways in which U.S. prisons are committed to many practices that are isolating and disabling of individuals.

Jesner v. Arab Bank

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-727
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling inJesner v. Arab Bank,deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The paper analyses some relevant issues related to the treatment oflaw enforcement officers in the United States after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of liberty, which requires informing that personof his/her constitutional rights. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona(1966), the Supreme Court of the United States set standards for law enforcementofficers to follow when interrogating suspects held in custody.Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be warned of theirright to remain silent; that any statements they make may be used as evidenceagainst them; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford anattorney, the State will assign them one prior to any questioning, if they so wish.According to Miranda, unless those rights are not read, any evidence obtainedduring the interrogation may not be used against the defendant.Ever since Miranda was decided, state and federal courts have struggled witha number of issues with regard to its application, including the suspect’s beingin custody, which entitles the suspect to being readMiranda rights, the suspect’swaiving the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Some decisionsby the U.S. Supreme Court have attempted to answer these difficult questions.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document