Thursday, November 10, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Today on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is Steve Vladeck’s essay, Bringing in the Jury. Steve reviews Suja Thomas’s recent book, The Missing American Jury: Restoring the Fundamental Constitutional Role of the Criminal, Civil, and Grand Juries (2016).
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Professor Suja Thomas (Illinois) has just published her book, The Missing American Jury (Cambridge U. Press). Here is a summary of the book:
Criminal, civil, and grand juries have disappeared from the American legal system. Over time, despite their significant presence in the Constitution, juries have been robbed of their power by the federal government and the states. For example, leveraging harsher criminal penalties, executive officials have forced criminal defendants into plea bargains, eliminating juries. Capping money damages, legislatures have stripped juries of their power to fix damages. Ordering summary judgment, judges dispose of civil cases without sending them to a jury. This is not what the Founders intended. Examining the Constitution's text and historical sources, the book explores how the jury's authority has been taken and how it can be restored to its rightful co-equal position as a "branch" of government. Discussing the value of the jury beyond the Constitution's requirements, the book also discusses the significance of juries world-wide andargues jury decision-making should be preferred over determinations by other governmental bodies.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Clinical Professor Sarah Ricks of Rutgers-Camden has published Current Issues in Constitutional Litigation. The book is part of the Context and Practice Casebook series and she uses it to teach a popular course of the same title. You can read more about it here.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Professor Brian Tamanaha of Washington University in St. Louis has published "Failing Law Schools," a book criticizing American legal education. According to the National Law Journal, "its central argument is that going to law school is a raw deal for most students."
Monday, October 10, 2011
Whenever colleagues at one of my former institutions would (tongue in cheek) argue about which required law school course was most important, one of my fellow Civ Pro professors would invariably pronounce Civil Procedure as “the foundation of all law.”
Those of us who appreciated the spirit, if not the letter, of this sentiment are brought down a peg or two by Justice John Paul Stevens’ recently-published Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir. In his brief history of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and the best-known opinions issued during the term of each, Justice Stevens makes no mention of a single civil procedure case – not even Erie.
Reading this 248-page small book is a pleasant way to spend an evening. I felt that I was sitting on the porch drinking lemonade with the justice. The book is organized chronologically, but some of his recollections seem a bit random. Discussions of death penalty jurisprudence bump up against a lengthy criticism of the redecorating of the justices’ conference room. Nonetheless, Justice Stevens’ graciousness, integrity, and love of the rule of law illuminate the volume.
So, back to my topic: no civil procedure nuggets. No discussion of why he couldn’t find some way to join Justice Brennan (or even Justice O’Connor) in Asahi and felt the need to strike out on his own. (He did mention that in law practice in Chicago, he represented “a surprisingly large number of entrepreneurs who were distributors of products manufactured by others – coin-operated washing machines, auto parts, calculating equipment, magazines, automobiles, and soft drinks,” but this did not lead to any discussion of stream-of-commerce.) No mention of Twombly and my favorite line of his dissent: “If Conley’s ‘no set of facts’ language is to be interred, let it not be without a eulogy.” No mention of Iqbal, even though he does discuss why he believes sovereign immunity has no place in a democracy. No mention of Shady Grove and that all-important portion of his concurrence with regard to Section 2072(b).
Good read, but don’t bother if all you wanted was an inside scoop on some leading civil procedure cases.