Thursday, December 8, 2016
Now on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is Robin Effron’s essay, Time to Say Goodbye to Forum Non Conveniens? Robin reviews Maggie Gardner’s recent article, Retiring Forum Non Conveniens, 92 N.Y.U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2017).
Monday, November 28, 2016
Now on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is Kevin Walsh’s essay, Equity, the Judicial Power, and the Problem of the National Injunction. Kevin reviews Sam Bray’s article, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Ed Cheng has posted on SSRN a draft of his article, Detection and Correction of Legal Publication Bias. Here’s the abstract:
Judges, attorneys, and academics commonly use case law surveys to ascertain the law and to predict or make decisions. In some contexts, however, certain legal outcomes may be more likely to be published (and thus observed) than others, potentially distorting impressions from case surveys. In this paper, I propose a method for detecting and correcting legal publication bias based on ideas from multiple systems estimation (MSE), a technique traditionally used for estimating hidden populations. I apply the method to a simulated dataset of admissibility decisions to confirm its efficacy, then to a newly collected dataset on false confession experts, where the model estimates that the observed 16% admissibility rate may be in reality closer to 28%. The article thus identifies and draws attention to the potential for legal publication bias, and offers a practical statistical tool for detecting and correcting it.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Friday, October 28, 2016
Bob Bone has posted on SSRN a draft of his article Tyson Foods and the Future of Statistical Adjudication, which will be published in the North Carolina Law Review. Here’s the abstract:
Statistical adjudication, the practice of using sampling and other statistical techniques to adjudicate large case aggregations, is highly controversial today. In all its forms, statistical adjudication decides cases on the basis of statistical extrapolation rather than case-specific facts. For example, a court adjudicating a large class action might try a random sample of cases, average the trial verdicts, and give the average to all the other cases in the aggregation. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court rejected a sampling proposal as inconsistent with the Rules Enabling Act, calling it “Trial by Formula.” In the wake of this decision, at least one commentator declared the death of statistical adjudication.
In an important decision last term, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the Court changed course and breathed new life into statistical adjudication. It upheld the use of sampling to establish liability and damages in a Fair Labor Standards Act case and indicated that the procedure might be available in other cases as well. The Court’s opinion is far from clear, however, and offers little guidance to lower court judges trying to determine when and how to use the procedure in future cases.
This Article explores the impact of Tyson Foods on the future of statistical adjudication. Part I defines statistical adjudication and distinguishes it from statistical evidence. Part II shows that Tyson Foods is a case of statistical adjudication, not statistical evidence. Part III takes a closer look at the Court’s opinion in an effort to tease out factors and principles to guide future use. Part IV explores reasons for the vague discomfort with the procedure, reasons that seem to be tied to nagging doubts about the legitimacy of the procedure. Critics worry that statistical adjudication is too strange a fit with adjudication, too substantive to be legitimately implemented as procedure, and too mechanical to count as a proper form of adjudicative reasoning. Part IV argues that statistical adjudication is not as strange as it might seem, that its outcome effects do not make it too substantive, and that while it substitutes a mechanical decision algorithm for the usual reasoning process, it does so in a way that can be justified as legitimate. It is time that we recognize statistical adjudication for what it is: a useful procedural tool that, when carefully designed and selectively deployed, is capable of adjudicating large case aggregations fairly and efficiently.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Erin Delaney has posted on SSRN her article, Analyzing Avoidance: Judicial Strategy in Comparative Perspective, 66 Duke L.J. 1 (2016). Here’s the abstract:
Courts sometimes avoid deciding contentious issues. One prominent justification for this practice is that, by employing avoidance strategically, a court can postpone reaching decisions that might threaten its institutional viability. Avoidance creates delay, which can allow for productive dialogue with and among the political branches. That dialogue, in turn, may result in the democratic resolution of — or the evolution of popular societal consensus around — a contested question, relieving the court of its duty. Many scholars and judges assume that, by creating and deferring to this dialogue, a court can safeguard its institutional legitimacy and security.
Accepting this assumption arguendo, this Article seeks to evaluate avoidance as it relates to dialogue. It identifies two key factors in the avoidance decision that might affect dialogue with the political branches: first, the timing of avoidance (i.e., when in the life cycle of a case does a high court choose to avoid); and, second, a court’s candor about the decision (i.e., to what degree does a court openly acknowledge its choice to avoid). The Article draws on a series of avoidance strategies from apex courts around the world to tease out the relationships among timing, candor, and dialogue. As the first study to analyze avoidance from a comparative perspective, the Article generates a new framework for assessing avoidance by highlighting the impact of timing on the quality of dialogue, the possible unintended consequences of candor, and the critical trade-offs between avoidance and power.
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).
This Article presents the first systematic study of foreign sovereign amicus briefs in the Supreme Court. Based on an analysis of the briefing, oral arguments, and opinions in every Supreme Court merits case involving a foreign sovereign amicus since 1978, this Article argues that foreign sovereigns do and should play an important role in shaping foreign relations law.
The Article begins with an empirical investigation of which sovereigns file, the types of cases in which they file, and the nature of the arguments they make. To a surprising extent, the Court cites foreign sovereign briefs, discusses them at argument, and even grants oral argument time to foreign sovereign amici — all despite the widespread perception that the Court is ambivalent or even hostile to foreign and international law.
The Article then situates the Supreme Court’s treatment of foreign sovereign amici within a larger story about how the Court approaches foreign relations questions. Although scholars have attempted to systematize and explain the deference the Court gives to the U.S. government in foreign relations cases, they have largely ignored the role that foreign sovereign amici play in the very same disputes. Accounting for the role of foreign sovereign amici challenges existing scholarly accounts of how and why the Court defers to the U.S. government on foreign relations issues.
The Article argues that the reasons underlying the Court’s deference to the U.S. government — the executive’s expertise, status as a lawmaker, and exercise of control over relevant policies — often apply to foreign sovereigns as well. This overlap in justifications for deference supports treating foreign sovereign amici similarly to the U.S. government in cases involving “international facts,” treaty interpretation, and customary international law. In cases involving foreign law, the justifications for deference suggest that foreign sovereign amici should receive more deference than the U.S. government.
In sum, attention to foreign sovereign amici sheds light on executive-to-judicial transnational networks and provides a more nuanced picture of the competing influences on the Court’s foreign relations jurisprudence.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Brian Fitzpatrick and Cameron Norris have posted on SSRN a draft of their article, One-Way Fee Shifting after Summary Judgment. Here’s the abstract:
New, defendant-friendly discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1, 2015. Although the discovery amendments created more controversy than perhaps anything the rulemakers have done in recent memory, defense-side advocates are pressing a still more ambitious proposal: to outright flip who pays for discovery, from the party who produces the discovery to the party who requests it. We share the view of most commentators that so-called "requester pays" is too extreme. But we also think the current regime — so called "producer pays" — errs too far in the other direction (even after the new amendments to the rules). In this article, we rely on economic analysis to offer a middle way: to ask plaintiffs to pay the cost of responding to their discovery requests only if they do not find anything trial worthy in those requests and lose their cases on summary judgment. Although Congress certainly has the power to implement our proposal, we believe that the rulemakers may be able to do so on their own as well.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Brooke Coleman has posted on SSRN her article, One Percent Procedure, 91 Washington Law Review 1005 (2016). Here’s the abstract:
In this election year, political rhetoric about the one percent is already pervasive, as those with the greatest concentrated wealth prosper and the remaining population stagnates. Because of their affluence, the one percent exercise disproportionate control over political and economic systems. This Article argues that federal civil procedure is similarly a one percent regime. The crème de la crème of the bench and bar, along with equally exclusive litigants, often engage in high-stakes, complex civil litigation. It is this type of litigation that dominates both the elite experience and the public perception of what civil litigation is. This litigation is not particularly common, however; while expensive and well known, it is in the minority. Yet this litigation and the individuals engaged in it have an incongruent influence on how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and procedural doctrine develop. They create one percent procedure.
This Article interrogates and connects disparate phenomena related to civil litigation, including the recent discovery amendments and the rise of multidistrict litigation. It demonstrates that the elite — those who are deeply steeped in complex, high-stakes litigation — are setting the agenda and determining the rules for how the entire civil litigation game is played. It further argues that the benefits of a one percent procedure system — notably expertise of the participants — are not worth the costs; indeed, that expertise can be detrimental to the design of a civil litigation system.
As in politics and economics, a system that gives too much control to the one percent risks undervaluing and underserving the remaining ninety-nine. Using social and political science, the Article argues that the homogenous policymaking of one percent procedure creates suboptimal results. The Article concludes that the structures giving rise to one percent procedure must be modified and proposes a set of reforms intended to allow the ninety-nine percent representation in, and access to, the process of constructing our shared civil litigation system.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Simona Grossi has posted on SSRN a draft of her article, A Principled Approach to Procedural Reform: Zooming In on the Claim. Here’s the abstract:
At the core of every liberal democracy is a commitment to a wide range of individual rights. The recognition and evolution of those rights is a lively topic of public debate. Procedural law, on the other hand, is well below the public radar. Yet, federal practice and procedure are silently eroding our system of democracy through a mechanical and fragmented approach to procedure that is increasingly detached from the litigation mission in a manner that elevates form over substance, prevents the creation and enforcement of rights, and ultimately denies access to justice. This article is part of a larger project intended to change the way we think about and approach procedural law and procedural reform at the federal level. My goal is to unearth the unifying principles of federal procedure and practice, and use them to design a system that promotes the coherent, fair, and efficient creation and enforcement of substantive rights. To that end, I elaborate a theory of federal procedure and practice that assigns to the claim, the essential litigation unit, a central role in litigation analysis and reform. Testing the federal rules and procedural doctrines against the claim helps us see when procedure, operating at a very high level of abstraction and formalism, suffocates substantive law and justice, thus failing to accomplish its essential mission of means in the creation and enforcement of substantive rights. Once identified the flaws in our procedural system, the project formulates reform proposals that are intended to return the rules and doctrines to the right balance between formalism and pragmatism, one essential for the rules and doctrines to accomplish their mission. Zooming in on the claim is crucial in this respect.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Aaron Nielson and Chris Walker have posted on SSRN their article, Strategic Immunity, 66 Emory L.J. 55 (2016). Here’s the abstract:
The first rule of administrative law is that discretion can be dangerous. Although discretion is often used for its intended purposes, scholars of the regulatory process understand from both theory and experience that unintended consequences sometimes result. This is one reason why the Supreme Court is cautious when it comes to agency discretion. After decades of preventing agencies from acting in arbitrary or even self-interested ways, the modern Court has developed a fairly sophisticated understanding of the risks and rewards of discretion and why it is essential to pay attention to incentives for the proper exercise of discretion.
That is, unless the Supreme Court is addressing judicial discretion. Then, its sophistication all too often gets tossed aside. Qualified immunity is a perfect example. In Pearson v. Callahan, the Court granted judges confronting novel civil-rights claims maximalist discretion whether to decide constitutional questions for the public’s benefit. The intent behind this new discretion is sound: flexibility allows judges to balance constitutional avoidance versus constitutional stagnation in light of case-specific factors. What the Court forgot, however, is that discretion can also have unintended consequences.
This Article addresses perhaps the most serious of these unintended consequences: strategic behavior by judges. While the Court recognizes that federal agencies may have incentives to use discretion in strategic ways, neither the Justices nor scholars have considered the strategic considerations that can influence a judge’s discretionary decision to clearly establish constitutional rights. The potential for strategic behavior is especially sharp, moreover, when discretion to decide constitutional questions is combined with discretion to issue unpublished, nonprecedential opinions. To illustrate this danger, this Article examines real-world judicial decisionmaking. Reviewing over 800 published and unpublished circuit decisions, this Article identifies significant “panel effects”: politically unified panels are more likely to exercise discretion either to find no constitutional violation, for “all Republican” panels, or to recognize new constitutional rights, for “all Democratic” panels. Yet on mixed panels there are no differences, suggesting a collegial concurrence or a majority compromise to avoid dissent. The decision to publish also appears to be used strategically. For instance, one in five decisions recognizing new constitutional rights is unpublished. This potential for strategic behavior — as in the administrative law context — begs for reform.
As Chris pointed out on twitter, this issue of the Emory Law Journal has a civ-pro/fed-courts vibe to it, including my article on the 2015 FRCP amendments and some interesting student comments on judicial immunity and personal jurisdiction. Check it out.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Judith Resnik has published her article, Revising Our "Common Intellectual Heritage": Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System, at 91 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1831.
This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation.
The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twentieth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since emerged, as the Supreme Court shaped new doctrines constricting judicial powers and rendering courts unavailable and unavailing.
Despite the Court’s reluctance to welcome claimants, Congress continues to endow the federal courts with new authority and significant funds. But what the federal government has thus far ignored are the needs of state courts, where 100 million cases are filed annually and states struggle to honor constitutional commitments to open courts and rights to counsel for criminal defendants.
Once state courts come into focus, two other and competing understanding of courts come to the fore. One merits the term “enabling courts,” as judges aim to equip litigants with lawyers and resources for conflicts related to families, housing, and health. From “Civil Gideon” movements and self-help forms to drug and reentry courts, new initiatives underscore the goals of using courts to be responsive to social needs. But another vector of court activities falls under the nomenclature of “exploitive courts,” using discriminatory fines, fees, and threats of jail for those unable to pay to turn courts into profit centers to augment localities’ budgets.
Inequality and racial tensions are the leitmotifs of this decade; it is neither surprising nor inappropriate that these issues are played out in public courts as well as in electoral politics. But these very inequalities counsel the need to develop a new intellectual heritage, premised on the interdependencies of state and federal courts, sharing the common purpose of fulfilling constitutional obligations in this democratic polity to enable access to their public services.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Today on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is Brooke Coleman’s essay, Racketeers, Mobsters, & Plaintiffs’ Mass-Action Attorneys. Brooke reviews Briana Rosenbaum’s forthcoming Iowa Law Review article, The RICO Trend in Class Action Warfare.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
My article on the 2015 amendments to the FRCPs is now in print. It’s The End of an Era? Federal Civil Procedure After the 2015 Amendments, 66 Emory L.J. 1 (2016). Here’s the abstract:
The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were the most controversial in decades. The biggest criticisms concerned pleading standards and access to discovery. Many feared that the amendments would undermine the simplified, merits-driven approach that the original drafters of the Federal Rules envisioned and would weaken access to justice and the enforcement of substantive rights and obligations.
This Article argues that the amendments that came into effect on December 1, 2015, do not mandate a more restrictive approach to pleading or discovery. Although there was legitimate cause for alarm given the advisory committee’s earlier proposals and supporting documents, the final amendments — in light of their text, structure, and accompanying advisory committee notes — should be interpreted to preserve notice pleading and a robust discovery process. The more significant lesson of the 2015 amendments, therefore, may be to confirm the view that the amendment mechanism of the Rules Enabling Act is unlikely to generate consequential changes to the Federal Rules (for better or for worse). The process leading to the 2015 amendments was teed up almost perfectly for opponents of meaningful access and enforcement to make real, detrimental changes to federal pleading and discovery standards. Yet the final amendments ultimately did not do so.
Accordingly, the key battleground following the 2015 amendments will be in the federal courts themselves, as judges are called upon to interpret and apply the rules in particular cases. No doubt aware of this fact, Chief Justice Roberts has taken various steps to spin the recent amendments as making more significant changes than they actually do. These post-amendment moves are not legally authoritative and do not modify the law of civil procedure. But the Chief Justice and his allies may win the day if they are able to dominate the gestalt surrounding the 2015 amendments in a way that persuades lower court judges to take a more restrictive approach. Properly interpreted, the 2015 amendments do not support the Chief’s narrative. Recognizing this will be crucial for ensuring access and enforcement going forward.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Alan L. Zimmerman, Fiona McKenna, Daniel J. Bush, and Cheryl Kaufman have published their article, Economics and the Evolution of Non-Party Litigation Funding in America: How Court Decisions, the Civil Justice Process, and Law Firm Structures Drive the Increasing Need and Demand for Capital, 12 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 635 (2016).
From the introduction:
Friday, October 7, 2016
Rick Marcus has posted on SSRN his article, Bending in the Breeze: American Class Actions in the Twenty-First Century, which was published in the DePaul Law Review. Here’s the abstract:
It is always better to have the breeze at your back, but that surely has not recently been the case for class action proponents. At the risk of overstating, there is a certain fin de siecle flavor to current procedural discussions, at least among academics; it seems that several foundational principles of late twentieth century procedural ordering have come under attack in the twenty-first century. Although not alone among those principles, class actions have a prominent role. Dean Robert Klonoff has recently written of "The Decline of Class Actions," and Professor Linda Mullenix has written of "Ending Class Actions as We Know Them." Professor Arthur Miller-who was present at the creation of the modern class action-has suggested that we face "the death of aggregate litigation by a thousand paper cuts." But he, at least, sees some "rays of light that indicate it will survive."' It is likely an overstatement to claim that any of these prominent academics foresees the imminent demise of American class actions. But as we shall see, lawyers sometimes view things in more apocalyptic terms. At the same time, most or all would probably agree with Judge Boyle about the increasing headwinds that plaintiffs face.
Without questioning in the least the idea that proponents of the class action have suffered some reverses recently, I intend to argue that Professor Miller's optimism about American aggregate litigation is justified. Like Confucius' green reed, the class action is likely to bend in the breeze and survive the current, cold climate. In significant part, this attitude stems from an appreciation of the exceptional character of American class actions in particular and the American bench and bar in general. As Professor Christopher Hodges of Oxford began his study of European techniques for affording relief in court to groups, lawmakers in Europe sought to avoid "a US-style court-based mechanism." And Canadian Professor Janet Walker introduced an international panel on group litigation in Moscow by noting that "everyone, at least outside the United States, seems also to agree that they do not want to adopt U.S.-style class actions in their legal systems."
Against this background, it does not seem that American aggregate litigation in general, and class actions in particular, are in danger of extinction. Indeed, one book published in 2014 on European group litigation worries in its title whether they-compared to American aggregate litigation-are "squeaking mice," and Dean Klonoff has recently explained why most nations do not have U.S.-style class actions."
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
David Shapiro has posted on SSRN his essay, An Incomplete Discussion of “Arising Under” Jurisdiction, which was published in the Notre Dame Law Review. Here’s the abstract:
This essay, a contribution to a Symposium in honor of Professor Daniel Meltzer, focuses on one aspect of federal question jurisdiction – cases in which a question of federal law is “embedded” in a state law cause of action. The essay deals primarily with these cases as they come to the Supreme Court on request for review of a state court decision, but also addresses cases that arise when a party invokes the original or removal jurisdiction of a federal district court. The questions whether and to what extent such cases fall within the constitutional and statutory authority of the federal courts are considered in the historical context of the evolution of Supreme Court decisions, and the interplay of the views over several decades of the author, of Professor Meltzer, and of seven editions of Hart & Wechsler’s “The Federal Courts and the Federal System.”
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Carlos Vazquez and Steve Vladeck have posted on SSRN a draft of their article, The Constitutional Right to Collateral Post-Conviction Review, which will be published in the Virginia Law Review. Here’s the abstract:
For years, the prevailing academic and judicial wisdom has held that, between them, Congress and the Supreme Court have rendered post-conviction habeas review all-but a dead letter. But in its January 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court may have dramatically upended that understanding in holding — for the first time — that there are at least some cases in which the Constitution itself creates a right to collateral post-conviction review, i.e., cases in which a state prisoner seeks retroactively to enforce a “new rule” of substantive constitutional law under the familiar doctrine of Teague v. Lane.
On the surface, Montgomery held only that state courts are required to employ Teague’s retroactivity framework when and if they adjudicate habeas petitions relying on new substantive rules of federal law. But, in reaching that conclusion, the Court clarified that Teague’s holding that new substantive rules of federal law are retroactively applicable on collateral review was a constitutional one, a holding that, as we explain, was both novel and important.
We next consider which courts — state or federal — have the constitutional obligation to provide the constitutionally required collateral review recognized in Montgomery. Either way, the implications of Montgomery are far-reaching. To conclude that the state courts must provide collateral review would run counter to the conventional wisdom that states are under no obligation to permit collateral attacks on convictions that have become final. On the other hand, the conclusion that federal courts must have jurisdiction to grant such collateral review is in significant tension with the Madisonian Compromise. In our view, the Supreme Court’s Supremacy Clause jurisprudence establishes that the constitutionally required collateral remedy recognized in Montgomery must be available, in the first instance, in state courts — even if the state has not chosen to provide collateral post-conviction relief for comparable state-law claims. The state courts also have the constitutional power and duty to afford such relief to federal prisoners, but Congress has the power to withdraw such cases from the state courts by giving the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Thus, we conclude that the state courts are constitutionally obligated to afford collateral post-conviction review to state prisoners in the circumstances covered by Montgomery, and the federal courts should be presumed to have the statutory obligation to afford such review to federal prisoners.
Finally, we examine some of the important questions raised by the conclusion that state and federal prisoners have a constitutional right to collateral relief. Although the questions are complex, and not all of the answers are clear, the uncertainties surrounding some of the contours of the remedy recognized in Montgomery should not obscure the fact this seemingly innocuous holding about the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction actually upends a half-century’s worth of doctrinal and theoretical analyses of collateral post-conviction review, a result that could have a breathtaking impact on both commentators’ and courts’ understanding of the relationship between collateral post-conviction remedies and the Constitution.