Volume 74 Issue 2

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW VOLUME 74 ISSUE 2 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT HALL Washington Square New York City New York University Annual Survey of American Law is in its seventy-fifth year of publication. L.C. Cat. Card No.: 46-30523 ISSN 0066-4413 All Rights Reserved New York University Annual Survey of American Law is published biannually at 110 West 3rd Street, New York, New York 10012. Subscription price: $30.00 per year (plus $4.00 for foreign mailing). Single issues are available at $16.00 per issue (plus $1.00 for foreign mailing). For regular subscriptions or single issues, contact the Annual Survey editorial office. Back issues may be ordered directly from William S. Hein & Co., Inc., by mail (2350 North Forest Rd., Getzville, NY 14068), phone (800-828-7571), fax (716-883-8100), or email ([email protected]). Back issues are also available in PDF format through HeinOnline (http://hein online.org). All works copyright © 2018 by the author, except when otherwise expressly indicated. For permission to reprint an article or any portion thereof, please address your written request to the New York University Annual Survey of American Law. Copyright: Except as otherwise provided, the author of each article in this issue has granted permission for copies of that article to be made for classroom use, provided that: (1) copies are distributed to students at or below cost; (2) the author and journal are identified on each copy; and (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy. Manuscripts: The Annual Survey invites the submission of unsolicited manuscripts. Text and citations should conform to the 20th edition of A Uniform System of Citation. Please enclose an envelope with return postage if you would like your manuscript returned after consideration. Editorial Office: 110 West 3rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10012 (212) 998-6540 (212) 995-4032 Fax http://www.annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org For what avail the plough or sail Or land or life, if freedom fail? EMERSON iv NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 2018–2019 BOARD OF EDITORS Editor-in-Chief KATHRYN MORRIS Managing Editors DANIEL W. BLAZE MICHAEL FREEDMAN MARISSA L. KIBLER DAVID MOOSMANN H. CHASE WEIDNER Development Editors Executive Article Editors Senior Articles Editors BRIAN R. GOTTLIEB EDWIN D. ABUNDIS KATHERINE E. CORIC SAMUEL A. SEHAM ALEX INMAN ISA M. HERRERA MOYA ALLYSON N. KALEITA AMY I. WANN Note Editors MICHAEL D. REBUCK NATALIE GOW AARON C.F. SALERNO JOSEPH M. LEVY SUZANNE D. TRIVETTE KIONE WONG Online Editor Inclusivity Editor KIRSTIE YU JOSHUA M. PIRUTINSKY ALLYSON N. KALEITA Articles Editors CLARA ARAGONE-DIAZ KIMBERLY T. DREXLER IGNATIUS NAM DEVIKA M. BALARAM YIRAN DU NEENA DEB SEN MIKHAIL BATSURA RANDOLL THEODORA FISHER NICOLE H. SNYDER ELLIOTT P. BARRON LILLIAN GRINNELL JACOB L. STANLEY JACOB A. BRALY JOSHUA HABERL KATHERINE T. STEIN ALLISON S. CANDAL SAMUEL F. HIMEL IAN M. SWENSON ROBERT COBBS AVI LAHAM BRETT M. WEINSTEIN CAROLINE DIAZ CHRISTINE J. LEE DARREN D. YANG DYLAN LONERGAN Staff Editors JOSHUA BARKOW SASHA KAWAKAMI CALEB ROCHE YOSEF BARUH KRISTEN LIANG JORDAN ROSMAN LAUREN RACHEL BOBERSKY KATHLEEN M. LEWIS JESSICA RUBIN SAMUEL BOORSTEIN KAREN LUO SANDER SABA MELANIE D. BORKER AARON MATTIS ELIZABETH SAMIOS TIFFANI CHANROO ELIZABETH A. MORGAN JESSICA SANDOR EKATERINA CHERNOVA SIDNEY MOSKOWITZ DANIELA SERNA BERRIO AUDREY CRABTREE-HANNIGAN KELLY NABAGLO JOSEPH SHUI ANNE S. COVENTRY JOEL NAIMAN ELINA SIGAL AMANDA DEMASI YELENA NIAZYAN YIANNI TSESMELIS GABRIEL EISENBERGER TRENTON S. PACER IBOH UMODU JOANNA M. FALEY GABRIELLE N. PACIA ALYSSA WAARAMAA KIMBERLY FAYETTE ERIC S. PADILLA KASI L. WAUTLET HANNAH GOLDBERG JORDANA PALGON SAMANTHA WILHELM DINO ILIEVSKI MEGHAN PATZER KE YANG XIA JONATHAN P. VARDEH JAFFE JUSTIN PEROFF EVAN T. YOO OLIVIA POSS vi SUMMARY OF CONTENTS ARTICLES THE “NEW” DISTRICT COURT ACTIVISM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM Jessica A. Roth 277 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN TRIAL COURTS Bruce A. Green & Rebecca Roiphe 365 ASPIRING TO A MODEL OF THE ENGAGED JUDGE Ellen Yaroshefsky 393 NOTES TRACING BLURRED LINES: CATHOLIC HOSPITAL FUNDING AND FIRST AMENDMENT CONFLICTS Emily E. Fountain 417 THE FOREIGN EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE: TRACING THE FRAMERS’ FEARS ABOUT FOREIGN INFLUENCE OVER THE PRESIDENT Marissa L. Kibler 449 viii VALUE QUALITY SERVICE VALUE We Complete the Picture. In 1932, Joe Christensen founded a company based on Value, Quality and Service. Joe Christensen, Inc. remains the most experienced Law Review printer in the country. Our printing services bridge the gap between your editorial skills and the production of a high-quality publication. We ease the demands of your assignment by offering you the basis of our business—customer service. Value 1540 Adams Street Lincoln, Nebraska 68521-1819 Quality Phone: 1-800-228-5030 FAX: 402-476-3094 email: [email protected] Service Your Service Specialists THE “NEW” DISTRICT COURT ACTIVISM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM JESSICA A. ROTH* Historically, the debate over the judicial role has centered on the consti- tutional and administrative law decisions of the United States Supreme Court, with an occasional glance at the Federal Courts of Appeals. It has, moreover, been concerned solely with the “in-court” behavior of Article III appellate judges as they carry out their power and duty “to say what the law is” in the context of resolving “cases and controversies.” This Article seeks to deepen the discussion of the appropriate role of Article III judges by broaden- ing it to trial, as well as appellate, judges; and by distinguishing between an Article III judge’s “decisional” activities on the one hand, and the judge’s “hortatory” and other activities on the other. To that end, the Article focuses on a cohort of deeply respected federal district judges-many of whom, al- though not all, experienced Clinton appointees in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York–who, over the last decade, have challenged conven- tional norms of judicial behavior to urge reform of fundamental aspects of the federal criminal justice system. These “new” judicial activists have made their case for reform in the pages of their judicial opinions, often in dicta; in articles and speeches; and through advocacy within and beyond the judicial branch. This Article summarizes this activity, places it in historical context, and assesses its value as well as its risks. I. Introduction......................................... 278 II. A Summary of the “New” District Court Activism .... 283 A. The Overly Punitive State ........................ 284 1. Background ................................. 284 2. Mass Incarceration........................... 288 3. Alternatives to Incarceration ................. 292 4. Collateral Consequences of Conviction ...... 295 B. The Excesses of Prosecutorial Discretion ......... 299 1. Overcharging ................................ 300 2. Undercharging .............................. 305 * Associate Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. I am grateful to Michelle Adams, Gabriel J. Chin, Bruce Green, Kyron Huigens, Benjamin Lawsky, Burt Neuborne, Daniel Richman, and Kate Stith for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and to participants in the 2016 Ethics Schmooze and CrimFest 2016, where this Article was presented as a work in progress. Thanks also to Ben Cain, Rachel Karpoff, and Josh Ontell for excellent research assistance. 277 278 NYU ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW [Vol. 74:277 3. Criminal Discovery .......................... 309 III. The “New” District Court Activism in Historical Context ............................................. 318 A. A Search for Historical Parallel .................. 318 B. Why Now? ....................................... 326 1. The Impact of Booker ........................ 326 2. Social and Political Context.................. 330 3. Shifting Judicial Roles and Norms ........... 336 4. The New Media Environment................ 340 IV. Evaluating the “New” District Court Activism......... 342 A. The Value of the “New” District Court Activism . 342 B. Reasons for Concern ............................ 349 C. Possible New Mechanisms of Judicial Input ...... 355 1. A Greater Institutionalized Role in Clemency .................................... 355 2. Annual Open-Ended Surveys of District Court Judges and Exit Interviews ................... 357 3. A Judicial Clearinghouse and Dissent Channel ..................................... 358 V. Conclusion .......................................... 359 VI. Appendix............................................ 362 The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.1 [F]or too long, too many judges (including me) have been too quiet about an evil of which we are ourselves a part: the mass incarceration of people in the United States today.2 I. INTRODUCTION You do not have to agree fully with Chief Justice Roberts’ insis- tence that Supreme Court Justices never do anything but call balls and strikes to believe that, most of the time, judges should try to act as umpires, not players. When the ground rules are relatively clear, 1. John Roberts, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, Statement During Nomination Hearings Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Sept. 12, 2005) (transcript available at http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/ roberts.statement [https://perma.cc/69M3-GK8Z]). 2. Jed S. Rakoff, U.S. Dist. Judge, S. Dist.

Load more