Appellate Advocacy Blog

Editor: Tessa L. Dysart
The University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law

Sunday, October 10, 2021

Becket is Hiring

I received word this week that Becket is hiring. For those who are not familiar with Becket, it is a leading religious liberty public interest law firm with a superb record before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It would be an excellent place to get some appellate experience. The details on the positions are below:

First, Becket is seeking to hire 1-2 new attorneys as Counsel. Ideal candidates will have an appellate clerkship, 1-5 years of post-law-school experience, and excellent litigation skills. You can find more details on the position here: https://www.becketlaw.org/counsel-position/.

Second, Becket is seeking 2-3 new attorneys for its 2022-23 Constitutional Law Fellowship. The fellowship is a one-year position that is open to exceptional recent judicial clerks. It provides immediate, hands-on experience litigating cutting-edge constitutional cases under the mentorship of experienced Becket attorneys. It is also an excellent stepping stone to an additional judicial clerkship, government service, private practice, or public interest law. Fellowships start in fall 2022 and offer a competitive salary and benefits. You can find more details here: https://www.becketlaw.org/constitutional-law-fellow-posting/.

October 10, 2021 in Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, October 9, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Saturday, October 9, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The controversial Texas abortion ban was blocked and then reinstated this week. The Texas law bans most abortions after about 6-weeks, making abortion virtually impossible in Texas. Judge Pitman of the District Court for the Western District of Texas blocked the ban, recognizing the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. Judge Pitman wrote: “[T]here can be no question that [the law] operates as a ban on pre-viability abortions in contravention of Roe v. Wade, and ‘equates to a near categorical ban on abortions beginning six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, before many women realize they are pregnant, and months before fetal viability.’”  He ends the opinion by finding that “[f]rom the moment [the Texas law] went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” See Judge Pitman’s decision and reports on the decision from NPR, Reuters, The New York Times, APNews, the Austin American Statesman, and The Washington Post.

  • Late Friday, the Fifth Circuit stayed Judge Pitman’s order.

Appellate Practice

The Advocate’s Society, Appellate Advocacy Practice Group: Networking Launch, is offering an online program titled “Dirty Tricks of Appellate Advocacy?” on October 26.

October 9, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, October 2, 2021

A Six-Vote Supermajority Requirement is the Solution to De-Politicizing the United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court is struggling to maintain its institutional legitimacy. A recent poll showed that only 40% of Americans approved of the Court.[1] Three factors arguably explain the reasons underlying the public’s negative perception of the Court.

1.    Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts is a brilliant and accomplished jurist, and by all accounts a good person. But Roberts has contributed substantially to the Court’s compromised legitimacy. This might appear surprising at first glance, considering that Roberts cares deeply about preserving the Court’s legitimacy and is dedicated to ensuring that the Court is not viewed as a political institution.

Sadly, that very concern is precisely what has politicized the Court. The reason is that, in many cases, Roberts decides cases not based on a reasonable interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision, but on what he believes will preserve the Court’s legitimacy, which essentially means that Roberts decides cases based on how he subjectively believes the public will react.

The problem with that approach should be obvious. It completely divorces the justices from the law, and from their obligation to reach outcomes based on a reasonable interpretation of constitutional and statutory text. In so doing, it enables nine unelected, life-tenured justices to reach outcomes based on their subjective views regarding what outcomes will be viewed as politically “legitimate.” The result is that the Court’s decisions are ipso facto political.

Roberts has been a disappointment on the Court. His approach betrays the rule of law and the judicial role. Put differently, when the justices base decisions on the desire to appear apolitical, they inherently politicize the Court. And Chief Justice Roberts is the Court’s most political actor.   

2.    The Shadow Docket

The Court’s shadow docket, in which it decides cases and important legal issues without oral argument. For example, in Whole Women’s Health, et al. v. Jackson, the petitioners applied for an order enjoining enforcement of a law in Texas that banned all abortions after six weeks, and that gave private citizens, not the government, the power to enforce the law. The Court denied the application, holding that it did not satisfy the standards required for granting a preliminary injunction. Although this interpretation was not incorrect, it showed that the Court couldn’t see the forest from the trees.

Any person with a pulse would recognize that, whatever one’s views on abortion, the law obviously violated the Court’s poorly-reasoned decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, both of which manipulated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to hold that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy before viability (i.e., approximately twenty-four weeks). Thus, because Texas’s law was so ridiculous, the Court should have voted unanimously to invalidate the law. Had the Court done so, it would have sent the message that the justices are not motivated by their policy preferences.  Instead, five members of the Court held that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the standards required for granting injunctive relief and allowed the law to go into effect. It should come as no surprise that the usual suspects – those who are almost certainly pro-life – signed onto this decision (Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch).

So, when the justices express surprise and indignation that the Court is viewed as a political institution and claim that decisions are not based on the policy predilections, it is hard not to laugh.

3.    The Justices’ Political Views

If you believe that the justices don’t base their decisions on personal policy predilections, then you probably believe that the United States faked the moon landing or that most law schools are deeply committed to ideological diversity.

Think about it: could you imagine Justice Sotomayor ever invalidating an affirmative action program? Could you ever imagine Justice Thomas or Justice Alito relying on stare decisis to uphold Roe and Planned Parenthood? Could you ever imagine Justice Kagan supporting restrictions on same-sex marriage? No.

And don’t be fooled when the justices claim that their decisions reflect differences in interpretive philosophies. Uh-huh. It’s interesting – and amazingly convenient – that the justices’ interpretive philosophies so often comport with their policy preferences. That isn’t an accident.

This fact does not make the justices bad people. It just means that they are human. It means that their personal views impact their decisions, which is precisely why it is so critical for the Court to base their decisions on a reasonable interpretation of constitutional or statutory text. It is why the Court should refuse to hear most cases where the Constitution is silent or ambiguous, and instead defer to the democratic and political process. Doing so minimizes the risk that personal preferences will triumph over the law, and decreases the likelihood that constitutional meaning will depend on whether the Court’s majority is comprised of liberals or conservatives.  

Otherwise, justices will feel free to roam unconstrained in the Constitution’s penumbras,  seeking to discover new rights that reflect the “heady days of the here and now.”[2] That approach, which the Court has embraced at times, explains in substantial part why the public doesn’t view the Court favorably.

The Solution

Chief Justice Roberts is not the solution. Expanding the Court, for obvious reasons, is not the solution. The solution is to require a six-vote supermajority to affirm or reverse a lower court decision.

This solution would have several benefits that would preserve the Court’s legitimacy, protect the separation of powers, and promote democratic choice regarding issues upon which the Constitution is silent. Specifically, 5-4 decisions have been and continue to be the source of substantial disagreement and division. The Court’s decisions in National Federation of Independent v. Sebelius, Obergefell v. Hodges, Shelby County v. Holder, and Bush v. Gore are perfect examples. A six-vote majority would reduce the frequency with which the Court issues divisive, controversial – and politicized – decisions.

Furthermore, requiring a six-vote majority would almost certainly lead to incremental, rather than drastic, changes in the law and minimize the risk that the Court’s decisions will be perceived as political and illegitimate. To achieve a six-vote majority, the justices would be forced to compromise and reach a middle ground concerning decisions that affect, among other things, civil rights and liberties. As such, the influence of ideology or policy preferences in the decision-making process would likely be minimized.

Finally, a six-vote majority might incentivize litigants to stop seeking social change through the courts and instead concentrate their efforts on effecting change through the legislature. Doing so would limit the Court’s power in a principled way. The Court would still decide cases that involved violations of specific constitutional or statutory guarantees, but a six-vote majority requirement would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to create rights based on implausible interpretations of the Constitution and thus engender public backlash. 

Without principled reforms, the public perception of the Court will likely remain negative, and with several controversial issues on its current docket, the Court’s legitimacy is likely to go anywhere but up.

 

[1] See Jeffrey M. Jones, Approval of Supreme Court Down to 40%, A New Low (Sep. 23, 2021), available at: Approval of U.S. Supreme Court Down to 40%, a New Low (gallup.com)

[2] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).

October 2, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Current Affairs, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 27, 2021

Judicial Selection & A Divided Nation

Two weeks ago I blogged about Lance B. Wickman's article, Lawyers as Peacemakers, in the most recent issue of the Journal of Appellate Practice & Process. Today, I want to discuss part of Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's article--The Non-United States of America.

Dean Chemerinsky spends the first half of his article positing reasons for the deep partisan divides in our country. He identifies structural aspects of our governmental system, like the Electoral College, as partially responsible. He also looks at the role of the media, former President Trump, and the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Dean Chemerinsky, the "deep partisan divide in the United States" is "the greatest threat to democracy that [our country] has faced" and could lead to "serious talk of secession." Despite these dire words, he remains "an optimist and believe[s] that there is much more that unites the American people than divides us."

In that spirit, he offers one suggestion--"change the method of picking Justices and lower federal court judges to make it less partisan." Dean Chemerinsky points to states like Alaska that have a merit selection process for picking state court judges.  Arizona has something similar. Our Judicial Nominating Commissions take applications for open judicial positions. The Commissions interview candidates and send a bi-partisan list to the governor, who selects a judge from that list. Many merit  selection states have systems modeled after the state of Missouri.

According to Dean Chemerinsky, former President Jimmy Carter used merit-selection panels for judicial vacancies. Dean Chemerinsky recommends that such panels be ideologically diverse and include non-lawyers. These panels would give the president at least two names to fill vacancies, and the president would promise to select from the list. Obviously, this would be a change from how presidents have nominated judicial candidates in the past. Traditionally, presidents rely heavily on the home state senators who are of the same party as the president for names.

Such a panel is an interesting idea. Dean Chemerinsky states that the panels should send "the most qualified individuals" to the president, but that is certainly an objective standard. And Dean Chemerinsky recognizes that presidents would have to voluntarily agree to create such a commission.  As he writes, "my hope is that once a courageous president creates the system, especially for high-profile Supreme Court nominations, political pressure will be great for others to follow the practice of merit selection."

I do think that the merit-selection process has worked well in some states, and it would be interesting to see something similar adopted at the federal level.

September 27, 2021 in Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Justice, Federal Appeals Courts, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, September 24, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, Sept 24, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court announced that it will hear an abortion case in the 2021 term that asks the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The case concerns a Mississippi abortion law that bans abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions "only in medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality." The law includes no exception for rape or incest. The case is set to be heard on December 1. See reports from CNN, CNBC, and NPR.  

  • The Supreme Court will adopt a hybrid argument format when it resumes in-person argument for the October term. The format will combine the pre-pandemic “free-for-all” style with the pandemic “turn-taking” style. Under the format, after a lawyers’ opening statements and during the allotted argument time, justices will pose questions as they did before the pandemic shut down. According to SCOTUSblog, during the argument, “the justices can presumably interrupt both the arguing lawyer and each other at will.” Then, after a lawyer’s argument time, “each Justice will have the opportunity to question that attorney individually. Questioning will proceed in order of seniority.” See the Guide and reports from Bloomberg and the ABA Journal.

  • On September 22, the Federalist Society aired “Supreme Court Preview: What is in Store for October Term 2021.” Find the YouTube link here.

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Fourth Circuit vacated its recent ruling that gun laws barring sales to those under 21 are unconstitutional (a ruling we covered in July 2021). The court decided that the decision was rendered moot when the plaintiff turned twenty-one. According to the court, “[a]fter the opinion issued but before the mandate, [Plaintiff] turned 21. And that made her claims moot.” “Despite efforts to add parties and reframe her claimed injuries, it is too late to revive this case.” See the order and reports from Reuters and the Associated Press.

  • The Fifth Circuit heard a challenge to the Mississippi voting rights act. The case seeks to overturn a Mississippi law that permanently disenfranchises people who have been convicted of certain felonies.  The argument can be accessed here. See a report from Courthouse News.

 

September 24, 2021 in Federal Appeals Courts, Oral Argument, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 12, 2021

Tips for Appellate Practice, Fourth Circuit Edition, Part I

 

“Interrogate the cases.” With that interesting turn of phrase, Michael Dreeben, a veteran of the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office, told an online audience last week that appellate advocates need to do more than read and study the cases that form the basis of each sides’ arguments. The half-day session, sponsored by the Fourth Circuit, contained a number of nuggets from judges and practitioners useful to any appellate practice.

Of course, there is no single way to argue a case, and two advocates can take very different approaches yet still achieve equal success. But when experienced voices from the bench and bar dispense advice, paying attention becomes the order of the day -- even if that advice does not work for you or, in your opinion, would not work for most people.

When Dreeben advised that appellate counsel “interrogate the cases,” he explained that it was important to examine more than a case’s facial holdings and reasoning. Interrogation meant that it was important to scrutinize the foundations of the decision’s results, its take on cited precedents, and its treatment in different contexts by other courts. Every appellate lawyer knows how to rely on a straightforward application of a decision’s essential holding or how to distinguish an opinion that has problematic application to the position you are taking. However, the suggestion to “interrogate” requires an advocate to go deeper and expose the either stronger basis for the rule announced by a case, or the weaker underpinning for it, perhaps based on a skewed interpretation of existing precedential building blocks.

Another useful perspective that Dreeben advocated lawyers adopt was to compose your argument while bearing in mind what does an intelligent jurist want to know to get the answer right? His experience taught him that most judges want to find the right answer. Consider what, whether based on the factual record or the posture of the law, will provide the tools that will help the judge rule your way. While anticipating what the inquiring mind of a generic judge might need to rule in your favor, it also helps to know your court and the judges who serve on it. Doing so will guide you about a judge’s willingness to consider legislative history or other tools that you might employ.

Looking at a case from every angle is a common refrain in appellate advocacy seminars, though the advice often has little content. Underscoring what it really means, Judge Paul Niemeyer called knowing how you can lose the case is “one of the most important aspects of preparation.” It forces you to consider the weaknesses in your argument and address them – or, explain why the problem you face does not doom your case.

Another experienced appellate practitioner, Kannon Shanmugam, provided some practical tips on modern brief-writing. He explained that, today, most judges read briefs on-screen, rather than plow through paper copies. To prevent points from being lost, he uses fewer footnotes than he once did to avoid forcing the judge to scroll up and down the page. Briefs should help the court reach a result. Shanmugam said that he considered a brief that runs 12,999 words, when the limit is 13000, a “tell” that the advocate has not helped the court by limiting the brief to its most essential focus.

Judge Niemeyer echoed a similar sentiment, calling for shorter, more focused briefs. He said he finds shorter briefs more powerful than the ponderous ones that are too frequently filed. He also warned against overuse of string citations: “Don’t just list cases. Argue.”

Finally, Judge Stephanie Thacker offered one other practical point that may often be overlooked. “My favorite part of a brief,” she said, “is the summary of argument.” She urged counsel not to give it short shrift or treat it as an afterthought. Instead, it should provide the reader with a clear and concise explanation of the facts and law. It helps the judge understand the entire argument and provides a basis for narrowing the issues the judge might believe critical to the ultimate resolution of the case.

*          *          *               

In a posting last month, I discussed arguments made in three briefs filed in short order, each of which sought the reversal of a precedents. One of those cases was Oklahoma v. Bosse,[1] where the State of Oklahoma filed a petition for certiorari that asked the Court to reconsider its year-old decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma,[2] because of the dire consequences the state had experienced since the decision. Less than a month after filing its petition, Oklahoma dismissed it, reserving for another day and another case its argument on why McGirt should be overturned.        

 

[1] No. 21-186, Pet. for Certiorari (S.Ct. Aug. 6, 2021).

[2] 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).

September 12, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Professionalism in Legal Writing – Dos & Don’ts, Part V - Point Heading, Summaries, and Transitions

The Supreme Court of Ohio, Commission on Professionalism, has published Professionalism Dos & Don’ts: Legal Writing.[1] Each Do and Don’t has several subpoints. Over the next few months, I plan to take a more in-depth look at some of these Dos and Don’ts and offer examples and suggestions for how appellate advocates can implement the Dos and avoid the Don’ts. This is the fifth post in the series.

Do provide appropriate signposts:

  • Do consider using headings and summaries.
  • Do use transitions between sections that guide the reader from one argument to the next, especially in longer pieces of writing.

The Commission on Professionalism asks us to consider using headings and summaries, but there’s nothing to consider, we should use headings and summaries. It is always our goal to make our writing clearer and thus to make our reader’s job easier. Headings and summaries help us do that. Transitions do too. They allow our reader to move seamlessly from one topic to the next

1.    Point headings make our writing better.

Headings (here we’re talking about point headings) make our writing clearer because they show the structure of our writing, convey key points, and create white space. So let’s talk about how to create useful headings.

A.    Point headings are topic sentences.

Point headings serve as the topic sentences of the paragraphs that follow. They tell your reader what you’re going to discuss. Be sure that the paragraphs that follow a point heading, and the sentences within each paragraph, relate directly to the point heading. If they don’t then you need to re-think your point heading or the paragraphs that follow it.

B.    Point headings should be full sentences.

Your point headings should be full sentences and they should convey substantive information. Which of these point headings is better

                1.    Strict Scrutiny.

                2.    The statute creates a class of disfavored speakers, so it is subject to strict-scrutiny review.

The second heading tells the reader the substance they should be learning in the subsequent paragraphs—how the statute creates a class of disfavored speakers and why strict scrutiny applies.

C.    Point heading should look like sentences.

Because point headings are full sentences, they should look like sentences. They should not be written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, nor should they be written in Initial Capital Letters. Save those styles for your section headings.

D.    Point headings are not just for the argument section.

Point headings are helpful in the fact section of briefs too. Again, they convey substantive information, show the structure of the fact section, and create white space. Here is an example:

               1.    In 2007 the National Parties negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement that contained a two-tier wage system.

The sentences that follow that point heading explain how and why the National Parties negotiated a two-tier wage structure.

E.    Point headings serve as a check on your analysis.

If you’ve created good point headings, you should be able to look at them and understand the structure of your argument. If you can’t, then you need to re-write your point headings or re-organize your analysis.

F.    Good point headings start with a good outline.

The simplest way to ensure that you’re creating good point headings and that you’ve created a well-reasoned argument is to spend time outlining your brief. You can then turn the points of your outline into point headings.

G.    You should include point headings in your Table of Contents.

Once you’ve written your brief and included good point headings, be sure to include the point headings in your Table of Contents. Doing so allows you to start persuading your reader sooner because they can see the key facts of your case and the key points of your argument just by reading your Table of Contents. Compare these examples:

Example 1:

TOC - Bad

Example 2:

TOC - Good

Good point headings make your writing clearer and allow your reader to follow the structure of your argument. Summaries do too.

2.    Summaries make our writing better.

Summaries should provide a brief overview of what you will discuss. Summaries allow you to orient a reader who is unfamiliar with a topic or issue. They give the reader a base of knowledge from which to work and help them better understand the information that you provide. Think of your summary as your elevator pitch.

After you’ve created good point headings and helpful summaries, think about ways you can transition your reader smoothly from one topic to the next.

3.    Transitions make your writing easier to follow.

A good transition should remind your reader what they just learned and prime them to receive additional information. Good transitions connect the parts of your writing to avoid sudden shifts between topics or arguments. They allow your reader to move smoothly from one subject to the next and show that there is a logical structure and flow to your writing.

Good point headings, summaries, and transitions work together to create a logical flow to your writing. The effort you put into crafting these parts of your brief will make your reader’s work easier and thus help you be a better advocate.

 

[1] https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Publications/AttySvcs/legalWriting.pdf

September 7, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession, Legal Writing, Moot Court, Rhetoric, State Appeals Courts, Tribal Law and Appeals, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, August 29, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Sunday, August 29, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court struck a CDC moratorium on evictions during the pandemic. An earlier nationwide moratorium lapsed on July 31, prompting the CDC to impose its own moratorium. This CDC moratorium temporarily halted evictions in counties with “substantial and high levels” of virus transmissions. The Court’s decision allows evictions to resume. The decision held that the CDC lacks the authority to act without explicit congressional authorization and ruled that, “[i]f a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it.” See the per curium order and reports from the Associate Press, NPR, and The Washington Post.

  • The Supreme Court revived the previous administration’s “remain in Mexico” asylum policy, refusing to stay a ruling that banned the Biden administration’s attempt end the policy. The policy requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they await hearings in the United States. The Court stated that the decision to end the policy appeared to be arbitrary and capricious. The decision leaves in place the lower court’s ban, which will be heard by an appeals court. See the order and reports from Reuters, The New York Times, APNews, and NPR.

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • In a rehearing on the issue, the Second Circuit let stand a lower court’s refusal to grant an injunction against anti-abortion protestors, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. New York State sued 13 protestors arguing that protesters crowded women, made death threats against escorts, and blocked the path with posters, which violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, New York State Clinic Access Act, and New York City's Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act. The district decision rejected the injunction motion, finding that the state had not shown that it would face irreparable harm. The panel on rehearing did not rule on the merits because it found that the lower court did not abuse its "considerable discretion" in denying the injunction. See the order and reports from Reuters and Courthouse News.

  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that denied a motion for preliminary injunction by a landlord group attempting to stop Los Angeles from enforcing an eviction moratorium. The court determined that the group could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, finding that, “even if the eviction moratorium was a substantial impairment of contractual relations,” the city “fairly tied the moratorium to its stated goal of preventing displacement from homes” during a pandemic. See order and reports from Bloomberg and The California Globe.

  • The Fourth Circuit affirmed the death sentence for the gunman who killed nine members of a Black Charleston church in a racially motivated shooting. The court stated that “[n]o cold record or careful parsing . . . can capture the full horror of what [the shooter] did” and that “[h]is crimes qualify him for the harshest penalty that a just society can impose.” The court rejected the argument that the gunman should have been ruled incompetent. The gunman is the first person in the US to be sentenced to death for a federal hate crime. See the ruling and reports from NPR, The Washington Post, and USA Today.

Effective Appellate Advocacy

On September 2, the Ninth Circuit and the Federal Bar Association are sponsoring a free program featuring Judge Margaret McKeown.  Judge McKeown will discuss effective brief writing and oral argument. Find information here



August 29, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Oral Argument, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

What To Do When Faced With Adverse In-Circuit Precedent

In my last post, I reviewed arguments employed in three different Supreme Court briefs seeking reconsideration of three separate precedents. The arguments attempted there in favor of overruling precedent as unworkable are equally applicable to adverse in-circuit precedents.

In the federal circuits, however, the process usually requires two-steps: first, an argument before the usual three-judge panel; and, second, upon the granting of a petition, argument en banc. The double argument occurs because one panel cannot overrule a prior panel’s precedential holding.[1] In the Eleventh Circuit, this practice is known as the “prior panel precedent rule.”[2] Some state courts of appeal follow the same rule.[3] Yet, other states permit one panel to overrule an earlier one on the same issue, but advise that it is an authority that should be exercised reticently.[4]

The Fifth Circuit has dubbed the practice the “rule of orderliness,” which holds that “one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.”[5] It also means that, “to the extent that a more recent case contradicts an older case, the newer language has no effect.”[6]

If an advocate is unable to distinguish the prior precedential holding, part of the argument before the initial panel must suggest the problematic decision is wrong and warrants rehearing en banc for purposes of reconsideration. A panel’s opinion, or even a judge’s dissent, that suggests the precedent was wrongly decided, even when those judges are obliged to follow it, provides a substantial boost to a petition for rehearing en banc.

Still, not every unfavorable in-circuit decision qualifies as controlling precedent. Even where a case is not otherwise distinguishable, it may be possible to characterize the prior decision’s problematic passage as obiter dicta. In those circumstances, the contrarian language “could have been deleted without seriously impairing the analytical foundations of the holding and being peripheral, may not have received the full and careful consideration of the court that uttered it.”[7] For example, if no party briefed and argued the point, the panel was deprived of arguments that might have caused it to avoid the issue or decide it differently. For that reason, there were no analytical foundations, and the dicta is not binding.[8]

State courts, too, hold that dicta is not binding. In California, for example, “dictum is a general argument or observation unnecessary to the decision which has no force as precedent.”[9] Instead, only the ratio decidendi, the “principle or rule which constitutes the ground of the decision,” serves as stare decisis.[10] Under that approach, a “decision is not authority for what is said in the opinion but only for the points actually involved and actually decided.”[11]

Recently, that same issue of what constituted stare decisis came up in the U.S. Supreme Court. In Ramos v. Louisiana,[12] the Court was asked to overrule cases that held the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial did not require a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense. Instead of overruling the earlier precedents, it abrogated them. The majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch denied that the earlier decisions constituted precedent because the result was the product of a fragmented Court. That characterization generated some controversy. Justice Kavanaugh, another member of the majority, vocally treated the prior decision as precedent, but precedent that deserved to be overruled. The dissenters insisted that adherence to stare decisis was necessary, even if they might have reached a different decision if the issue was first being presented.

The bottom line is that there are a variety of tools available to an advocate who finds an adverse precedent in the way of a favorable result. Understanding the concerns that a court has expressed and the rules it follows can provide a blueprint for building that case. And, sometimes, when you notice disagreement within the U.S. Supreme Court about what constitutes binding precedent, a door may open to some arguments a lower appellate court has not previously considered.

 

[1] See, e.g., United States v. Salazar, 987 F.3d 1248, 1254 (10th Cir. 2021).

[2] Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001).

[3] See, e.g., Nat'l Med. Imaging, LLC v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 3D20-730, 2020 WL 5228979, at *1 n.2 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. Sept. 2, 2020).

[4] See, e.g., Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App 211, ¶ 44, 335 P.3d 378, 391.

[5] Jacobs v. Nat'l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

[6] Arnold v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 213 F.3d 193, 196 n.4 (5th Cir. 2000).

[7] Int’l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, 372 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

[8] Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F.2d 1051, 1059 n.5 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1053 (1977).

[9] United Steel Workers of America v. Bd. of Ed., 162 Cal.App.3d 823, 834 (1984).

[10] Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 214 Cal.App.3d 203, 212 (1989).

[11] Childers v. Childers, 74 Cal.App.2d 56, 61  (1946) (emphasis in original).

[12] 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020).

August 29, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, August 14, 2021

Using a Nice Example of Persuasive Writing, the Fifth Circuit Cautions Us to Check Our Spam Folders

Every few years, I ask my first-year writing students to analyze a problem on defaults, motions to cure, and the like.  When I teach upper-division students, I always include some exercise on malpractice and default judgments.  On August 9, the Fifth Circuit gave us a new spin on checking dockets and calendars, as well as our email spam folders, in Rollins v. Home Depot USA, Inc., __ F.4th __ , 2021 WL 3486465 (5th Cir. 2021).  See also Debra Cassens Weiss, 5th Circuit warns of “cautionary tale for every attorney” as it refuses to revive lawsuit, ABA Journal (Aug. 11, 2021).  The concise opinion also gives us a new example of the persuasion in writing straightforward facts, using clear topic sentences, and following fairly strict CRAC-style organization.

Judge James C. Ho started the opinion with a great “hook,” explaining:  “This is a cautionary tale for every attorney who litigates in the era of e-filing."  Judge Ho followed with a concise, easy-to-read fact summary, in just a few sentences: 

Kevin Rollins brought suit against his employer for personal injury.  The employer filed a motion for summary judgment on the eve of the parties’ agreed deadline for dispositive motions.  But Rollins’s counsel never saw the electronic notification of that motion.  That’s because, by all accounts, his computer’s email system placed that notification in a folder that he does not regularly monitor.  Nor did he check the docket  after the deadline for dispositive motions had elapsed. 

As a result, Rollins did not file an opposition to the summary judgment motion.  So the district court subsequently entered judgment against Rollins.

Rollins, __ F.4th at __, 2021 WL 3486465 at *1. 

According to the opinion, Rollins was injured while moving a bathtub for his employer, Home Depot.  Id.  Rollins then sued Home Depot in state court.  In one of the less-helpful parts of the opinion, the court uses passive voice—"The case was subsequently removed to federal court”—so we do not know which party asked for removal, but we can presume it was Home Depot. 

In the federal district court, counsel for Rollins, Aaron Allison, agreed to receive filings “through the court’s electronic-filing system via the email address he provided, as attorneys typically do in federal courts across the country.”  Id.  The parties later agreed to a scheduling order requiring that all dispositive motions be filed by May 11, 2020 and providing a 14-day period for responses to any motions.

On May 7, Home Depot filed its motion for summary judgment.  Allison explained the e-notification for the summary judgment motion filing “’was inadvertently filtered into a part of Rollins’ counsel’s firm email system listed as “other,” instead of the main email box where all prior filings in the case were received.’”  Id.   As a result, Allison did not see the electronic notification of Home Depot’s motion, and Home Depot did not mention the motion when Allison “contacted Home Depot’s counsel a few days later to discuss the possibility of a settlement.”  Id.   

Allison told the ABA Journal his firm had never had a problem with e-filing or with the email system.  He noted “opposing counsel never separately notified Allison of the filing and continued settlement talks with the apparent knowledge that Allison wasn’t aware of the pending motion.”  See Weiss, 5th Circuit warns of “cautionary tale for every attorney.”   In fact, after Allison learned of the granted summary judgment motion, “his firm checked and scanned all emails and found the motion in an ‘obscure part’ of the email system.”  Id.  The firm tried to open the email, but it had been corrupted.  Id. 

Nonetheless, “without any response from Rollins, the district court reviewed the pleadings, granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment, and entered final judgment on May 27.”  Rollins, __ F.4th at __, 2021 WL 3486465 at *1.  On June 3, Allison again contacted Home Depot’s counsel to discuss settlement, but Home Depot’s counsel informed him the district court had already entered a final judgment.  Id.  Allison then filed a FRCP Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court’s judgment against Rollins.  The district court denied the motion, and Rollins appealed.

The Court of Appeals explained it would review “only” for an abuse of discretion, using one word to stress the deferential standard of review.  Id. at *2.  The court then set out the law in the nice, persuasive rule statements we all try to use, starting with phrases like, “But our court has explained” Rule 59(e) motions are for a “narrow purpose.”  Judge Ho stated Rule 59(e) is “not for raising arguments” which “could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued” or where there is no intervening change of law.   Id.   

On the merits, the court began:  “To be sure, we do not question the good faith of Rollins’s counsel. But it is not “manifest error to deny relief when failure to file was within [Rollins’s] counsel’s ‘reasonable control.’”  Id.  Although reasonable minds can disagree on the application of the rules here, the court then succinctly applied its stated rules to Rollins and found no abuse of discretion.  The court reasoned “Rollins’s counsel was plainly in the best position to ensure that his own email was working properly—certainly more so than either the district court or Home Depot.”  Interestingly, the court placed an affirmative burden of checking online dockets on counsel, even if counsel is not expecting any filings.  According to the court, “Rollins’s counsel could have checked the docket after the agreed deadline for dispositive motions had already passed.”  Id.   

In his interview with the ABA Journal, Allison called the ruling a “‘lawyer beware’ decision.”  He and his client are discussing a possible motion for reconsideration en banc, and if that is denied, a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Weiss, 5th Circuit warns of “cautionary tale for every attorney.”

I plan to share this opinion with my students, not only for the substantive points on e-filings, but also for the opinion’s lessons in persuasion.  And, we can all watch online dockets to see if Rollins decides to move forward. 

August 14, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, Legal Writing, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, August 1, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Sunday, August 1, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • High School SCOTUS blog founder, Anna Salvatore, moderated "Reporting on the Supreme Court" this week. The event, presented by The Daily Princetonian and the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, featured panelists Chris Geidner, MSNBC columnist and previous legal editor at BuzzFeed; David Lat, Founder of Original Jurisdiction and Above the Law; and Kimberly Robinson, Supreme Court correspondent for Bloomberg Law.

  • Reuters posted a review of the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” this week. Find it here.

  • A July Gallup poll reports a 49% approval rating for the Supreme Court, which is the first time since 2017 that the rating has been below the majority level. See the Gallup New report.

 Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court ruling that had upheld California’s school closure during the pandemic. In reversing, the court held that the closing of private schools violated parents’ Due Process rights to determine the forum of their children’s education and determined that the closure ruling should be held to strict scrutiny. The court held that the “right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interested protected by the Due Process Clause,” which includes the right to choose the “educational forum itself.” See the opinion and a report from the LA Times.

  • The Sixth Circuit ruled that the CDC had exceeded its authority when it temporarily halted evictions during the pandemic. The CDC’s order replaced and expanded Congress’s 120-day moratorium on rental properties that participated in federal assistance programs or that had federally backed loans. Now set to expire on July 31, the CDC’s order applied to all rental properties nationwide.  See the order and reports from ABA Journal, The Hill, and Reuters.

  • The Tenth Circuit rejected a wrongful death claim against a Colorado recreation company and ruled that the lower court properly applied Colorado law to determine that the decedent had waived liability against the company. The plaintiff argued that Texas law should apply since the decedent, a resident of Texas, signed the waiver while in Texas. The court reasoned: "If we applied Texas law because it is the state where [the decedent] signed the liability release, we would essentially allow the other forty-nine states to regulate a key industry within Colorado. Such an approach is impractical and illogical." See the decision and report in The Gazette.

  • The Ninth Circuit rejected a meat industry appeal that challenged California’s animal confinement standards as unconstitutional. California’s Proposition 12 (the “Farm Animal Confinement Initiative”) is a voter-approved law that regulates the production of veal, pork, and eggs sold in California; it forbids the sale of meat from animals not housed within its “stand-up-turn-around” requirement. The challenge argued that the regulation had the effect of controlling nationwide meat production standards, which violates the Extraterritoriality Doctrine of the Commerce Clause. The court rejected the argument, narrowly interpreting extraterritoriality as applying only to laws that dictate the prices of products. The court reasoned: “It is undisputed that Proposition 12 is neither a price-control nor price-affirmation statute, as it neither dictates the price of pork products nor ties the price of pork products sold in California to out-of-state prices.” See the decision and reports from Bloomberg Law and Courthouse News.

August 1, 2021 in Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 23, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, July 23, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • Mississippi’s attorney general has asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, calling it “egregiously wrong.” The Court will ear argument this fall on whether to allow Mississippi’s law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. See the Brief for Petitioners and reports from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and Bloomberg News.

  • Adam Feldman wrote an analysis of the 2020-21 Supreme Court shadow docket; it was posted on The Juris Lab. Coined by Professor William Baude, the term “shadow docket” refers to the Court’s decisions made outside the regular docket and without oral argument. 

 Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The DC Court of Appeals tossed a Constitutional challenge against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a House resolution to create a proxy voting system to allow remote legislating during the pandemic. The court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review rules and procedures of the House. The court agreed with the lower court decision that “the resolution and its implementation lie within the immunity for legislative acts conferred by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.” See the decision and reports from The Hill and The New York Times.

  • The Tenth Circuit upheld as constitutional a law that permits the revocation of the passport of a person who owes taxes. Thus, the court determined that international travel is not a fundamental right. This ruling is the first of its kind. See the decision and reports from Bloomberg Law and The Gazette (CO).

  • The US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied a petition to preliminarily enjoin an Indiana University Covid policy that requires all students and staff to be vaccinated, with exceptions for religious, ethical, or medical reasons. The policy requires those who are unvaccinated to take special precautions including wearing masks, taking additional Covid tests, and quarantining during an outbreak. The court weighed individual freedoms against public health concerns and found that the petitioners did not show they would suffer irreparable harm. The court held that “[t]he university is presenting the students with a difficult choice — get the vaccine or else apply for an exemption or deferral, transfer to a different school, or forego schools for the semester altogether. … But, this hard choice doesn't amount to coercion.” See the decision and reports from NPR, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal.  

  • The Fourth Circuit has ruled that gun laws barring sales to those under 21 are unconstitutional because they restrict the rights of citizens. The court wrote: “Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18-to-20-year-olds to a second-class status.” See the decision and reports from CNN, USA Today, and The Hill.

July 23, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 9, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, July 9, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

The Supreme Court ended the 2020-21 term last week. And with that came the many end-of-term wrap-ups and commentaries. Here are a few for your perusal:

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas’s rule that requires attorneys to join the bar association violates the First Amendment. The court reasoned that, because “the Bar is engaged in non-germane activities,” compelling Texas attorneys to join and pay dues violates their First Amendment Rights. See the order and reports from the ABA Journal and the Times-Picayune

Jobs

The Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of North Carolina is hiring an Appellate Assistant Federal Public Defender.  See the posting here.

Interesting Discussions

  • Tim Koval posted a discussion that he and Jeff Lewis had with Judge Robert Bacharach of the Tenth Circuit about using acronyms in brief writing. Spoiler: avoid them if you can.

  • Avi Wolfman-Arent  started a thread (and sub-thread) about the circumstances that led to the Supreme Court case where we find the oft-quoted First Amendment line about yelling fire in a crowded theater. 

July 9, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 2, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, July 2

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter (@Daniel_L_Real) or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court News and Opinions:

It was a very busy final week of the term for the Supreme Court, with a number of orders and opinions released throughout the week.

On Monday, the Court rejected requests to review two cases concerning the ability of courts to intervene in disputes arising in religious settings, declining to resolve separation of church and state disputes.  More from Bloomberg.

Also on Monday, the Court declined to review a lower federal court decision that found a school violated the Constitutional rights of a transgender student when it imposed a policy banning him from using the boys' restroom. More from BuzzFeed.

Also on Monday, the Court struck down barriers to challenging governmental takings of property in federal court, ruling that the "exhaustion requirement" imposed before bringing suit in federal court only requires giving a state agency a chance to weigh in, rather than requiring following all of the agency's administrative procedures.  More from Bloomberg.

Also on Monday, the Court vacated an Eighth Circuit opinion and remanded a case involving assertions of excessive force by St. Louis police who restrained an inmate in an incident in which he died. The Court ruled that the appellate court deemed as "insignificant" facts that should have been given consideration in deciding whether to grant summary judgment on the excessive force claim, reviving the claim.  More from Courthouse News.

On Tuesday, the Court ruled against a group of noncitizens who had applied for "withholding" relief -- a remedy that involves an exception to the typical action of expeditiously again removing noncitizens who have been removed but are found back in the United States when there is risk of returning them to a country where they might face torture or persecution. More from Scotusblog.

Also on Tuesday, the Court ruled that states cannot stop developers from using the federal government's power of eminent domain to seize property for construction of a natural-gas pipeline through the state.  More from Scotusblog.

Also on Tuesday, the Court refused to lift the federal moratorium on evictions during the COVID-19 outbreak, leaving the ban in place until the end of July, as extended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  More from Bloomberg.

On Thursday, the Court upheld voting restrictions imposed by Arizona, limiting cases under the Voting Rights Act.  The ruling will make it more difficult to contest state-imposed election regulations.  More from Scotusblog.

Also on Thursday, the Court struck down a California requirement that charities and nonprofit organizations operating in the state disclose to the state attorney general's office the names and addresses of the organization's largest donors.  More from Scotusblog.

On Friday, the Court issued a summary reversal in the case of an Alabama death row inmate who had won habeas corpus relief in the lower court, upending the death row inmate's win.  More from Bloomberg.

In the ongoing discussion of whether Justice Breyer will or should consider retiring and allowing President Biden to name and seek confirmation of his replacement, Breyer's friend Kenneth Feinberg writes that Breyer is "at the top of his game" right now.  See the piece at Law.com.

Federal Appellate Court News and Opinions:

This week, the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling that mostly upheld Oklahoma's mandatory bar dues as Constitutional.  More from Law360.

Appellate Practice Tips and Pointers:

Appellate Twitter provided a couple of great threads this week, with appellate practitioners providing some great thoughts on effective advocacy.

Carl Cecere started a thread on Monday discussing the value of Introductions and Summaries in appellate briefs, an all-too-often overlooked opportunity for good advocacy.

Tobias Loss-Eaton started a thread on Thursday discussing the virtues of doing trial level work and trial level briefs, even if you aspire to some kind of "idealized" practice of high court appellate brief writing, because of the insight and development it can provide.

Appellate Jobs:

The Seventh Circuit is accepting applications for positions in the court's Office of Staff Law Clerks to begin in the fall of 2022.  Application information HERE.

July 2, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Justice, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Writing, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Professionalism in Legal Writing – Dos & Don’ts, Part III

The Supreme Court of Ohio, Commission on Professionalism, has published Professionalism Dos & Don’ts: Legal Writing.[1] Each Do and Don’t has several subpoints. Over the next few months, I plan to take a more in-depth look at some of these Dos and Don’ts and offer examples and suggestions for how appellate advocates can implement the Dos and avoid the Don’ts. This is the third post in the series.

Do present an honest, accurate position:

  • Do include all relevant facts.

Appellate counsel must provide the court all the facts that are relevant to the issues raised in the appeal—yes, even the bad facts. Of course, we want to use word choice, sentence structure, and other techniques to deemphasize the facts that are unfavorable to our client and highlight those that are favorable. And while appellant’s counsel might be tempted to save those “bad” facts for a reply brief—don’t. First, we have an ethical obligation to provide the court all of the relevant facts. Second, it is better to present those “bad” facts first and in the way that is best for our client than to have opposing counsel bring them out first. Finally, disclosing the “bad” facts may enhance our credibility with the court.

  • Do cite the record accurately.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require the appellant’s brief to contain “a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review . . . with appropriate references to the record (see Rule 28(e).”[2] Rule 28(e) provides:

References to the parts of the record contained in the appendix filed with the appellant's brief must be to the pages of the appendix. If the appendix is prepared after the briefs are filed, a party referring to the record must follow one of the methods detailed in Rule 30(c). If the original record is used under Rule 30(f) and is not consecutively paginated, or if the brief refers to an unreproduced part of the record, any reference must be to the page of the original document. For example:

Answer p. 7;

Motion for Judgment p. 2;

Transcript p. 231.

Only clear abbreviations may be used. A party referring to evidence whose admissibility is in controversy must cite the pages of the appendix or of the transcript at which the evidence was identified, offered, and received or rejected.[3]

Accurate record cites are important. They allow the court to confirm the accuracy of our representation of the facts, which again, allows us to build credibility with the court. Accurate record cites also allow the court to confirm that we preserved for appeal the issues we raise. Failure to include record cites may result in sanctions.[4]

  • Do disclose relevant authority, including adverse controlling authority.

Of course, we’re going to disclose relevant authority that supports our arguments. But what do we do about unfavorable authority that doesn’t control? (We’ll discuss controlling adverse authority in a minute.) If our opponent is likely to cite the unfavorable authority, or the court is likely to discover it, then I think the best approach is to disclose it and find a way to distinguish it. Just as with “bad” facts, disclosing adverse authority allows us to shape how the court views that authority.

We have an ethical duty to disclose adverse controlling authority. For example, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide, “A lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”[5]

Counsel ignored controlling precedent in Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Co.,[6] which led to an interesting set of photographs in the Federal Reporter. After noting counsels’ failure to disclose controlling adverse authority, the court wrote:

The ostrich is a noble animal, but not a proper model for an appellate advocate. (Not that ostriches really bury their heads in the sand when threatened; don't be fooled by the picture below.) The “ostrich-like tactic of pretending that potentially dispositive authority against a litigant's contention does not exist is as unprofessional as it is pointless.”[7]

The court then included these images in its opinion:

Ostrich

Lawyer

  • Do update all cited authorities and exclude any reversed or overruled cases.

Modern research tools make “Shepardizing” authorities a relatively simple task—far less laborious than for those of us who learned using books. But, we can’t just rely on the flags or signals that appear on your screen. We must read the authorities to ensure the flag or signal is accurate for the point upon which we wanted to rely.

An honest, accurate writing style builds credibility and makes our reader’s job easier.

 

[1] https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Publications/AttySvcs/legalWriting.pdf

[2] Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).

[3] Fed. R. App. P. 28(e).

[4] E.g. Dennis v. Intl. Paper Co., 58 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Dennis's brief does not comply with this rule. We are satisfied, based upon the evident carelessness in which Dennis's attorney has presented this appeal and its obvious deficiency on the merits, that Dennis's attorney has persisted in prosecuting a meritless appeal in contravention of § 1927. We find, therefore, that some measure of sanctions is appropriate.”); Plattenburg v. Allstate Ins. Co., 918 F.2d 562, 564 (5th Cir. 1990) (“This brief also fails to make even one citation to the record where relevant . . . .”)

[5] ABA Model Rule 3.3(a)(2).

[6]  662 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2011).

[7] Id. at 934, quoting Mannheim Video, Inc. v. County of Cook, 884 F.2d 1043, 1047 (7th Cir.1989), quoting Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1198 (7th Cir.1987).

June 29, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession, Legal Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 25, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Sunday, June 25, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court sided with the student in the recent and much-anticipated First Amendment student speech case, finding that the school violated the student’s right to free speech when it punished her for a Snapchat post made while the student was off school grounds. The Court applied the traditional Tinker test and determined that this student’s speech was not disruptive. Although finding for the student, the decision preserved the right of school administers to police off-campus speech that meets the Tinker standard, that is, speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” The decision states, “[t]he school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances. … [including] serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.”  See the order and a sampling of the many reports, including from The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Associated Press, NPR, and The New York Times.

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit the police to enter a home or grounds except in emergencies and that “hot pursuit” does not “trigger a categorical rule allowing home entry.” In this case, after a motorist failed to stop when officers attempted to pull him over, the officers followed the motorist into his garage and arrested him for driving under the influence. The motorist sued, arguing that the officers had violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  The Court agreed, stating, “when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled.” The Court reaffirmed that entry without a warrant is permitted in circumstances of true emergency, stating “[o]n many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home.”  See the order and reports in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today.

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of private landowners, striking a California regulation that permitted union organizers to recruit farm workers at their workplace.  The Court determined that the regulation amounted to a taking of private property because it allowed unions to invade the landowners’ property without compensating the property owner.  See the order and reports from The New York Times, The Associated Press, Reuters, and Bloomberg

  • This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved bills that would expand video coverage of federal court trials and other proceedings, including allowing the filming of Supreme Court argument for the first time. These bills are the first in over ten years aiming to expand live coverage of federal proceedings. See reports from Politico and Forbes.

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Ninth Circuit stayed a recent lower court ruling that had struck California’s 30-year old ban on assault rifles. The judge striking the ban compared the AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army Knife, calling it “good for both home and battle.” The Ninth Circuit’s short order stays the ruling pending other related cases challenging the assault weapons ban.  See the ruling and reports from CNN and The LA Times.

June 25, 2021 in Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

The Problem with the Invited Future Appeal in Justice Alito's Fulton v. Philadelphia Concurrence

    When Supreme Court Justices author concurring opinions, they offer signals to future litigants. Most commonly, the concurring Justice signals disagreement with, or limitations they would place upon, the majority’s reasoning. Some concurrences pose open questions to the bar that the Justice thinks a future litigant should answer, without providing any clear resolution themselves.[1] But a more troubling signal comes from concurrences like Justice Alito’s in last week’s Fulton v. Philadelphia.[2] Alito penned a 77-page blueprint for future litigants to argue that Employment Division v. Smith[3] should be overruled. Such “opinion-briefs” pose a future question and offer a detailed roadmap for future parties to resolve it, describing the specific arguments that the author would find persuasive when issuing a future ruling.[4] Opinion-briefs like Alito’s are more akin to persuasive advocacy than neutral resolution of a legal dispute.

    The trend of opinion briefs is troubling for three reasons. First, opinion-briefs create a rift between a legal system founded upon adversary procedure and the actual process of litigation in that system’s highest court. When Justices dictate both the direction and content of future litigation, they promote a top-down style of jurisprudence. Justices control the agenda and direction of legal change more with each passing term. For critics of judicial policymaking, such top-down jurisprudence initiated by opinion-briefs is a frightening prospect.

    Second, opinion-briefs undermine traditional notions of appellate jurisprudence, including stare decisis. Justices authoring opinion-briefs are no longer neutral arbiters of the future legal controversies they invite. Opinion-briefs disregard any sense of judicial humility; the opinion-brief’s author intimates that only she can divine the best legal arguments in support of a particular position, belittling any creative solutions of litigants. Opinion-briefs are frequently a first step in a Justice-led crusade to overrule long-standing precedent, offending notions of stare decisis inherent in appellate judging. This is a pattern that Justice Alito himself has followed in the past in campaigning to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.[5]

    Third, opinion-briefs like Alito’s contribute to the inefficiency of a Supreme Court that issues fewer and fewer opinions that have grown longer and longer. A less productive Court has less capacity to address pressing legal questions in need of resolution. The Court struggles to clearly resolve even the few legal controversies it does address when it issues fractured opinions that include lengthy concurrences inaccessible to the average American. And opinion-briefs preemptively set future dockets to the exclusion of other cases or controversies, just as Justice Alito’s opinion all but guarantees future litigation on the viability of Smith.

    No matter the merits of Justice Alito’s Fulton concurrence, it sets a bad precedent for the use of concurring opinions to dictate the precise direction of future litigation. On those grounds alone, it ought to be disfavored by Americans from all political perspectives.

 

[1] In past work, I have called this type of opinion a “soft invitation” for litigants to raise an issue in the future, with no promise of how the Justice might resolve that issue. See Michael Gentithes, Check the Invitation: The Trouble with Appeals Invited by Supreme Court Justices, 82 Mo. L. Rev. 339, 341 (2017).

[2] 593 U.S. __ (2021).

[3] 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[4] See Gentithes, supra note 1, at 341.

[5] See Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 311 (2012); Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616, 633-38 (2014); Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2478-86 (2018); see also Michael Gentithes, Janus-Faced Judging: How the Supreme Court is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis, 62 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 83, 101-04 (2020).

June 22, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Court Reform, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Legal Profession, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Five Tips for Students in Moot Court and for Appellate Advocates

Moot Court is an important class in law school because it teaches students the skills necessary to be effective appellate advocates.  Below are five rules that moot court students – and practicing appellate advocates – should follow when arguing before an appellate court.

1.    Start strong

First, begin with a powerful opening sentence that captures the court’s attention. Of course, don’t be too general or overly dramatic. Instead, ask yourself how you would describe in one sentence why you should win. The answer should be your opening sentence.

Second, use the Rule of Three. After your opening sentence, immediately and concisely provide the court with three reasons supporting the outcome you seek. Be sure that they are clearly delineated and supported by the record and relevant law.

Third, tell the court what remedy that you are seeking and the rule you would like the court to adopt. The court needs to know what you want and why giving you what you want would result in a workable rule that can be applied fairly and consistently to future cases. Put simply, the beginning of your argument is a roadmap for the court to follow that will lead to a ruling in your favor.

Consider the following examples by attorneys who are appealing a district court’s decision to dismiss via summary judgment their client’s defamation case on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were constitutionally protected opinion:

May it please the court. The First Amendment is sacrosanct in our society. Ensuring a robust marketplace of ideas is essential to a democratic society. To that end, unpopular ideas are protected from government censure and even the most distasteful comments warrant First Amendment protection. But sometimes, people cross the line and say things that neither the First Amendment nor common decency should countenance. The founders did not intend for any speech, no matter how harmful, to receive First Amendment protection, as the United States Supreme Court has recognized in cases like Miller v. California and Brandenburg v. Ohio. This is one of those cases. The harm caused to my client by the statements made against him is actionable under federal law.

What nonsense. If I was the client and listened to this opening, I would cringe and possibly run out of the courtroom. Now consider this example:

May it please the court. The appellee’s statement implied underlying false facts, was defamatory as a matter of law, and caused severe reputational harm. First, the statement that my client was “a disgusting person and attorney who would lie to any client to make money,” implied that my client was an incompetent and unethical lawyer. Under United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, these statements are actionable and defamatory. Second, the statement is verifiably false. As demonstrated in the over fifty reviews by former clients, my client's inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America for the past ten years, and his selection as the Lawyer of the Year last year, the statement is untrue. Third, the statement has subjected my client to harm and ridicule in the community. Several clients have fired him. Many have sent him offensive emails. He has been suspended from the State Ethics Committee on which he served. For these reasons, we respectfully request that this court overturn the district court’s grant of summary judgment by applying the well-settled principle that opinions implying underlying facts can – and often are – defamatory.

 The difference should be obvious.

2.    Answer the judges’ questions.

Perhaps the most important part of an oral argument at the appellate level is the judges’ questions. Those questions provide insight into, for example, concerns the judges may have about one or more of your arguments or the rule that you would like them to adopt. They are also an opportunity – indeed the best opportunity – to make your case to the judges.

To do so, you should follow two basic rules. First, answer the questions directly. Do not try to avoid them or give answers that may sound persuasive but that aren't responsive. You are a lawyer, not a politician. If you give evasive answers, you will lose credibility with the judges. You will show that you lack effective responses to the judges' concerns. And that will undermine the strength of your argument. Thus, be sure to answer the questions directly. Those answers may require you to acknowledge weaknesses in your case, such as unfavorable facts or law. Who cares. The best attorneys concede these points and explain why they do not affect the outcome they seek.

Second, the best attorneys pivot seamlessly from the question back to their argument and thus continue the argument with excellent organization and flow. Consider the following examples:

Judge: Counselor, as bad as this statement may seem, stating that someone is a ‘disgusting person’ is pure opinion. If we accepted your argument, almost any statement could be construed as asserting an underlying fact, thus compromising core First Amendment values. So where would you draw the line or, to put it differently, what criteria would you use to distinguish between pure opinions and those that imply underlying facts?

Attorney: Well, the real issue here is about the harm. My client’s reputation has been severely and, perhaps, irreparably harmed by this statement. And the record amply supports that fact. So, the technical distinction between pure opinions and opinions implying underlying facts is really just an argument about semantics.

Judge: Let me try this one more time. What criteria would you use to distinguish pure opinions from opinions implying underlying facts?

Attorney: With all due respect your honor, that is not the question in this case. The question is whether my client was defamed. The answer is yes.

That is simply terrible. Now consider this example.

Judge: Counselor, as bad as these statements may seem, stating that someone is a ‘disgusting person’ is pure opinion. If we accepted your argument, almost any statement could be construed as asserting an underlying fact, thus compromising core First Amendment values. So where would you draw the line or, to put it differently, what criteria would you use to distinguish between pure opinions and those that imply underlying facts?

Attorney: The distinction is verifiability. Pure opinions cannot be proven to be factually false. For example, if a person says, “the New York Yankees are a bad team,” that would be a pure opinion because what one considers ‘bad’ is subjective. But if a person said, “The New York Yankees are only a good team because of the stuff their players take to enhance their performance,” that would be an opinion that implies underlying facts because it can be proven that the players do not take performance-enhancing substances. In this case, the appellee did not simply say that my client was a ‘disgusting person.’ He said that he was a ‘disgusting person and attorney who would lie to any client to make money.' We can verify, through affidavits and sworn testimony, that he never lied to a single client about any matter pertaining directly or indirectly to their representation. And that is why the rule we ask this court to adopt is neither novel nor unworkable. We simply ask that you apply well-settled precedent stating that opinions implying underlying false facts can be defamatory. Indeed, in this case, they most certainly were defamatory.

Again, the difference should be obvious.

3.    Have a conversation with the court

During an oral argument, you should be yourself and have a conversation, not a confrontation, with the court. The judges are not your enemies. They are simply trying to reach the fairest outcome that is consistent with the law and justified by the facts. Thus, you should be friendly and respectful, realizing that, as an advocate and as an officer of the court, your responsibility is to help the judges reach the best result while remaining faithful to your client’s objectives.

The best way to do this is to provide the court with a practical and workable legal rule that can be applied fairly and consistently to future cases. Remember that appellate judges are not focused exclusively or even primarily on your client. They are focused on whether the outcome they reach and the rule they adopt will provide workable and just in future cases, both as a matter of law and policy. For this reason, the best appellate lawyers advocate fiercely on their clients' behalf but also propose legal rules that the court believes will provide clarity, fairness, consistency, and predictability in future cases.

4.    Don’t screw up on the basic aspects of appellate practice

Never make the basic mistakes, namely, the ‘red flag’ errors that undermine your credibility and your case. For example:

  • Know the record
  • Know the law (and please make sure your legal authority remains valid law)
  • Know the standard of review
  • Write an outstanding – and concise – appellate brief and remember that the brief is more important than the oral argument
  • Never be disrespectful to the lower or appellate court, or the adversary
  • Follow the federal or state rules, and the local rules
  • Don’t make weak arguments
  • Cite cases and other authority
  • Know the difference between binding and persuasive authority
  • Have realistic expectations and communicate those expectations to your client
  • Don’t use notes at oral argument
  • Be honest
  • Don’t be a jerk

This list is certainly not exhaustive. But if you violate one of these rules, your chances of winning will be compromised – as will your reputation.

5.    Have a short list of ‘non-negotiable’ legal arguments

It’s difficult to predict what will happen in an oral argument. Some appellate panels ask many questions, which is known as a ‘hot’ bench. Some ask few questions. Sometimes, the judges raise issues that you don't expect or ask questions that you have difficulty answering. Regardless of what happens at an oral argument, you should always have a list in your mind of the arguments that are so essential that you must communicate them to the court, no matter what the direction or focus of the argument.

And remember, there are some things that cannot be taught or that require significant practice. Those are a lawyer's: (1) charisma; (2) personality; and (3) persuasiveness. The best appellate advocates have all three.

June 13, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Appellate Procedure, Federal Appeals Courts, Law School, Legal Profession, Moot Court, Oral Argument | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 11, 2021

Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Sunday, June 11, 2021

WeeklyRoundupGraphic

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send a quick note to either (1) Dan Real at DReal@Creighton.edu or on Twitter @Daniel_L_Real or (2) Catharine Du Bois at DuBoisLegalWriting@gmail.com or on Twitter @CLDLegalWriting.

US Supreme Court Opinions and News

  • The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that violent felonies committed recklessly, as opposed to intentionally or knowingly, do not count toward the “strikes” that would trigger the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Federal Armed Career Criminals Act.  The Act requires the mandatory minimum for those convicted of firearms possession when they have been previously convicted of three violent felonies. The plurality opinion (one justice agreed on different grounds) determined that the Act excludes crimes committed recklessly, saying the words “against the person of another” requires purposeful conduct and “demands that the perpetrator direct his action at, or target, another individual.” See the order and reports from The New York Times, Bloomberg Law, and The Hill.

  • A few weeks ago, we flagged Johnson & Johnson’s cert petition appealing a $2.1 billion award to petitioners who claimed that J&J talcum powder products caused their cancer. This week, the Supreme Court denied cert. See articles in the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

  • Last week, The New York Times’s Adam Liptak and Alicia Parlapiano reported on a survey from researchers at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Texas looking at what the public thinks about this term’s major Supreme Court Cases.  Find the article here.

Appellate Court Opinions and News

  • The Eighth Circuit has affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking a Missouri abortion ban.  The law would have prohibited abortions after eight weeks or because the fetus has Down Syndrome. The ruling is based in the Supreme Court precedent that “[b]ans on pre-viability abortions are categorically unconstitutional.” The ruling recognizes that the law was a ban rather than a restriction: “Unlike a regulation, the Down syndrome provision does not set a condition that—upon compliance—makes the performance of a pre-viability abortion lawful, thus preserving the constitutional right to elect the procedure. Rather, it bans access to an abortion entirely,” See the order and reports from The Courthouse News, The Washington Times, and The Associated Press.

  • The well-loved and highly-respected Second Circuit Judge Robert A. Katzmann died this week. See the US Courts announcement, a New York Times tribute and a report, and a statement by U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.

June 11, 2021 in Appellate Advocacy, Federal Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, June 5, 2021

Judicial Opinions & Pop Culture (or, are the Star Wars sequels "mediocre and schlocky")

Earlier this week I received an email from a student with this Ninth Circuit opinion attached. The subject of the email was "Judge Lee and Star Wars," and the student told me to look on page 26 at footnote 5. I was a bit puzzled at first, since the case was about class action settlements. But, when I got to page 26 it was all clear. Here is what Judge Lee wrote,

Under the settlement, ConAgra agreed to refrain from marketing Wesson Oil as “100% Natural.” That sounds great, except that ConAgra already abandoned that strategy in 2017 — two years before the parties hammered out their agreement — for reasons it claims were unrelated to this or any other litigation. Even worse, ConAgra’s promise not to 
use the phrase “100% Natural” on Wesson Oil appears meaningless because ConAgra no longer owns Wesson Oil. In reality, this promise is about as meaningful and enduring
as a proposal in the Final Rose ceremony on the Bachelor. Simply put, Richardson — the new owner of Wesson Oil — can resume using the “100% Natural” label at any time it
wishes, thereby depriving the class of any value theoretically afforded by the injunction. ConAgra thus essentially agreed not to do something over which it lacks the power to do. That is like George Lucas promising no more mediocre and schlocky Star Wars sequels shortly after selling the franchise to Disney. Such a promise would be illusory.5

Footnote 5. As evident by Disney’s production of The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker.

I laughed out loud when I read the paragraph and footnote, but I also was not surprised, since I have known Judge Lee for many years, and he is definitely a fan of Star Wars (and apparently the Bachelor?). Judge Lee's Star Wars analogy has also made the news, especially in the movie and comic spheres, with one headline reading:

U.S. Ninth Circuit Court Declares THE LAST JEDI "Mediocre And Schlocky" In Recent Ruling

Although that headline might stretch the analogy a bit, it did get me thinking--should judges throw pop culture references into their judicial opinions? In my mind, the answer is certainly yes.

Before I defend pop culture references in judicial opinions, let me start with what I assume to be the critique--that it trivializes important disputes. The response is--like any other use of humor--there is certainly a time and a place for pop culture references. There are some cases where pop culture references could seem insensitive or overly trivial, but in other cases, they humanize the judiciary and raise awareness about our court system, which is why I think that they are great!

According to a 2020 survey, only 51% of Americans can name all three branches of government, with 23% unable to name any branch of government. Compare this to the 49% of adults who have seen The Empire Strikes Back. I couldn't find statistics for the number of people who can name the three movies in the original trilogy, but I think that you get my point.  Star Wars is a big business and very well known. If a pop culture reference to Star Wars gets people to think, albeit even briefly, about our federal court system, that reference is a plus in my book.

How common are pop culture references in judicial opinions?  I ran a few searches on Westlaw Edge to see what I could find.  Searching "Star Wars" in all cases brought up 403 hits. In glancing at the top 50 results, most of them have to do with copyright infringement--they aren't using pop culture to make an analogy.  Justice Kagan did make a Star Wars reference in her dissent in  Lockhart v. U.S., stating "Imagine a friend told you that she hoped to meet 'an actor, director, or producer involved with the new Star Wars movie.' You would know immediately that she wanted to meet an actor from the Star Wars cast—not an actor in, for example, the latest Zoolander. . . . Everyone understands that the modifying phrase—'involved with the new Star Wars movie,' . . . —applies to each term in the preceding list, not just the last." 577 US. 347, 362 (Kagan, J., dissenting).

A search for "Harry Potter" in all cases brought up 284 hits. I looked at the last 84 results, and I found some gems:

  • "Between Marshall's status as the only other person at the defense table and the fact that, by this time, Jenkins had twice previously been shown Marshall's face, Jenkins's in-court identification of Marshall was about as unexpected as the mention of Voldemort in a Harry Potter novel." Marshall v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 828 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2016)
  • "According to plaintiff, goodwill is a fleeting concept, here one instant and gone the next, depending upon a firm's current profit status—much like a Harry Potter wizard who disapparates in bad times and reappears in good." Deseret Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 438, 451 (2013)
  • "In a word, today's decision will not require even depositary banks to hire armies of employees to examine each check like something out of Harry Potter's Gringotts Wizarding Bank. It will require only a minimal level of reasonable care." HH Computer Sys., Inc. v. Pac. City Bank, 231 Cal. App. 4th 221, 240, 179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689, 703 (2014)
  • "The effect is that the debtor's homestead is subject to the loss of its exemption because the snapshot taken upon filing catches the potential for movement not unlike a photograph from a Harry Potter novel captures the movement of the subjects in the photograph." In re Montemayor, 547 B.R. 684, 701 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2016)

So appellate judges--throw in those pop culture references!  Maybe, just maybe, it will increase awareness and interest in the judiciary.

June 5, 2021 in Current Affairs, Federal Appeals Courts, Film, Humor, Legal Writing, State Appeals Courts, United States Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)