Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles (No. 11-1450), which considers whether plaintiffs can block CAFA removal by stipulating that the class is seeking damages below the $5 million threshold for CAFA diversity jurisdiction. Check out the oral argument transcript.
For additional coverage:
- Associated Press (Mark Sherman)
- Bloomberg (Greg Stohr)
- How Appealing (Howard Bashman)
- National Law Journal (Tony Mauro)
- N.Y. Times (Adam Liptak)
- Reuters (Jonathan Stempel)
- SCOTUSblog (Prof. Debra Lyn Bassett, Southwestern Law School)
- @SCOTUSHUMOR (Prof. Jay Wexler, Boston University)
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Patrick Luff (Arizona State) has posted Captured Legislatures and Public-Interested Courts to SSRN.
Public choice, the dominant paradigm of modern regulatory theory, argues that government activity provides benefits to small, organized interests at the expense of larger groups. In practice, this means that interest groups are often able to benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. This model has been extended to the courts, which are described as implicit or explicit actors in the wealth-transfer process. Applying public-choice theory to the courts, however, overlooks the structural differences between courts and the elected branches, as well as the insights of judicial decisionmaking theory. Not only do judges receive better and more complete information than the elected branches, but they also process that information differently than elected-branch officials, leading to more reliably public-interested results. This should cause us to rethink the countermajoritarian difficulty, and by extension, judicial restraint. The countermajoritarian difficulty is grounded in the presumption that legislatures enact the majority will, which courts disrupt through judicial review. Where courts act with the public interest in mind, and therefore implement the majority will, while the elected branches serve private interests, the case for judicial restraint based on the countermajoritarian nature of the courts is significantly undermined.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Chief Justice John Roberts has issued the 2012 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. The underlying data relied upon has not yet been publicly released.
The Chief Justice reports 278,442 civil case filings in the district courts in FY 2012. This is a 4% decrease from 2011 (in which there were 289,252 civil case filings).
Perhaps more strikingly, "[c]ases involving diversity of citizenship . . . declined 15 percent, mainly because of a drop in multidistrict litigation filings." Given that there were 101,366 diversity filings in 2011, this means that there were approximately 86,161 diversity filings in FY 2012. (The Year-End report does not provide the exact figure.)