DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 575 Part 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 575 Part 2 575 2 of 2 PRELIMINARYPRINT o.55(p 9–2;9316)UIE TTSRPRSPr 2 Part REPORTS STATES UNITED 993–1068) 496–827; (Pp. 575 Vol. Volume 575 U. S. - Part 2 Pages 496–827; 993–1068 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THESUPREMECOURT May 4 Through June 5, 2015 Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure End of Volume CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the bound volume goes to press. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Publishing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 J USTICES of the SUPREMECOURT during the time of these reports JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Associate Justice. CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice. STEPHEN BREYER, Associate Justice. SAMUEL A. ALITO, Jr., Associate Justice. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Associate Justice. ELENA KAGAN, Associate Justice. retired JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice. DAVID H. SOUTER, Associate Justice. ofącers of the court LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General.* DONALD B. VERRILLI, Jr., Solicitor General. SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk. CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON, Reporter of Decisions. PAMELA TALKIN, Marshal. LINDA S. MASLOW, Librarian. *Attorney General Lynch was presented to the Court on May 18, 2015. See post, p. iii. i SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Allotment of Justices It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2010, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice. For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice. For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice. September 28, 2010. (For next previous allotment, see 561 U. S., p. vi.) ii PRESENTATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Supreme Court of the United States WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2015 Present: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Jus- tice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Jus- tice Alito, and Justice Kagan. The Chief Justice said: The Court now recognizes the Solicitor General of the United States. Solicitor General Verrilli said: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. I have the privilege to present to the Court the Eighty-third Attor- ney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch of New York. The Chief Justice said: General Lynch, on behalf of the Court, I welcome you as the Chief Legal Officer of the United States and as an officer of this Court. We recognize the very important responsibil- ities that are entrusted to you. Your commission as Attor- ney General of the United States will be noted on the records of the Court. We wish you well in the discharge of the du- ties of your new office. Attorney General Lynch said: iii iv PRESENTATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Thank you Mr. Chief Justice. The Chief Justice said: Thank you General for coming to the Court. I NDEX (Vol. 575 U. S., Part 2) ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGION. See Civil Rights Act of 1964. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. Accommodations for bringing mentally disabled suspect into cus- tody—Officers’ qualified immunity.—Question whether ADA “requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into cus- tody,” is dismissed as improvidently granted; and petitioner police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for injuries suffered by Sheehan in course of her arrest. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, p. 600. ARTICLE III COURTS. See Bankruptcy. BANKRUPTCY. Bankruptcy judges—Article III—Stern claims.—Article III permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate Stern claims—i. e., claims designated for final adjudication in bankruptcy court by statute but prohibited from pro- ceeding in that way by Article III, see Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462— with parties’ knowing and voluntary consent, which may be either express or implied. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, p. 665. Chapter 7 conversion—Return of postpetition wages.—A debtor who converts a bankruptcy case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 is entitled to return of any postpetition wages not yet distributed by Chapter 13 trustee. Harris v. Viegelahn, p. 510. Denial of plan confirmation—Final appealable order.—A bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed repayment plan in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is not a final order that debtor can immedi- ately appeal. Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, p. 496. Underwater junior mortgage liens.—A Chapter 7 debtor may not use § 506(d) of Bankruptcy Code to void an underwater junior mortgage if creditor’s claim is both secured by a lien and allowed under § 502. Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett, p. 790. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871. Section 1983—State corrections officials—Qualified immunity— Suicide prevention protocols.—Petitioner state corrections officials are v vi INDEX CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871—Continued. entitled to qualified immunity in this 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit, in which re- spondents allege that petitioners violated their incarcerated relative’s civil rights by failing to implement adequate suicide prevention protocols to prevent his suicide. Taylor v. Barkes, p. 822. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. Title VII—Religious practice accommodation—Motivating factor in employment decision.—To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation of a religious practice was a motivating factor in an employment decision, not that employer had knowledge of his need. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., p. 768. COMMERCE CLAUSE. See Constitutional Law. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Bankruptcy. Commerce Clause—Personal income tax—Credit for income taxes paid to other States.—Maryland’s personal income tax scheme, which does not offer Maryland residents a full credit against income taxes that they pay to other States, violates dormant Commerce Clause. Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, p. 542. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. See Immigration Law. CREDITORS AND DEBTORS. See Bankruptcy. CRIMINAL LAW. Communication of a threat in interstate commerce—Jury instruc- tion.—At petitioner’s trial on charges that he communicated a “threat . to injure the person of another” in interstate commerce by posting violent material about his estranged wife and others on Facebook, see 18 U. S. C. § 875(c), an instruction that only required jury to find negligence with re- spect to that communication was not sufficient to support conviction. Elonis v. United States, p. 723. Firearms possession—Convicted felons—Transfer to third party.— Title 18 U. S. C. § 922(g), which prohibits a felon from possessing any fire- arms, does not bar a court-ordered transfer of felon’s lawfully owned fire- arms from Government custody to a third party, provided that court is satisfied that recipient will not give felon control over firearms, so that he could either use them or direct their use. Henderson v. United States, p. 622. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy. DEPORTATION. See Immigration Law. DISPARATE-TREATMENT CLAIMS. See Civil Rights Act of 1964. INDEX vii DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. See Constitutional Law. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974. Breach of fiduciary duty claim—6-year statutory bar.—Ninth Circuit erred by applying Act’s 6-year statutory bar, 29 U. S. C. § 1113, to a breach of fiduciary duty claim based solely on fiduciary’s initial selection of invest- ments to be included in a 401(k) savings plan without considering contours of alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Tibble v. Edison Int’l, p. 523. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. See Civil Rights Act of 1964. FACEBOOK. See Criminal Law. FALSE CLAIMS ACT. See Qui Tam Suits. FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE. Amendments to Rules, p. 1049. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Amendments to Rules, p. 1055. FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS. See Em- ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. FIREARMS POSSESSION. See Criminal Law. FRAUD. See Qui Tam Suits. IMMIGRATION LAW. Conviction for concealing unnamed pills—Deportation.—Petitioner’s Kansas conviction for concealing unnamed pills in his sock did not “relat[e] to a controlled substance” for purposes of triggering removal under 8 U. S. C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Mellouli v. Lynch, p. 798. IN FORMA PAUPERIS. “Three strikes” provision—In forma pauperis status—Prior dismissal pending on appeal.—For purposes of a special “three strikes” provision that prevents federal courts from affording in forma pauperis status to prisoners who have brought frivolous civil actions or appeals in federal court on three or more prior occasions, see 28 U. S. C. § 1915(g), a qualify- ing prior dismissal counts as a strike even if it is pending on appeal. Cole- man v. Tollefson, p. 532. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Constitutional Law; Criminal Law. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. See Criminal Law. KANSAS.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL include the Administrative Assistant to of procedure to be followed by the the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Reporter lower courts of the United States. of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Information Officer. the course of a term, and some 1,000 Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate applications of various kinds are filed jurisdiction has been conferred upon the each year that can be acted upon by a Supreme Court by various statutes under single Justice. the authority given Congress by the Access to Facilities The Supreme Court Constitution. The basic statute effective is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 at this time in conferring and controlling p.m., Monday through Friday, except on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may Federal legal holidays. Unless the Court be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, or Chief Justice orders otherwise, the 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 statutes. Congress has no authority to p.m., Monday through Friday, except on change the original jurisdiction of this Federal legal holidays. The library is Court. open to members of the bar of the Court, Rulemaking Power Congress has from attorneys for the various Federal time to time conferred upon the departments and agencies, and Members Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthony Kennedy
    Anthony Kennedy Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is a retired American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Anthony Kennedy the United States from 1988 until his retirement in 2018. He was nominated to the court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and sworn in on February 18, 1988. After the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he was the swing vote on many of the Roberts Court's 5–4 decisions. Born in Sacramento, California, Kennedy took over his father's legal practice in Sacramento after graduating from Harvard Law School. In 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Kennedy to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In November 1987, after two failed attempts at nominating a successor to Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., President Reagan nominated Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Kennedy won unanimous confirmation from the United States Senate in February 1988. Following the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, Kennedy became the Senior Associate Justice of the Court; he remained the Senior Associate Justice until his July 2018 retirement. Kennedy retired during the presidency of Donald Trump and was succeeded by his former law clerk, Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Kennedy authored the majority opinion in several important cases, including Boumediene v. Bush, Citizens United v. FEC, and four gay rights cases the United States (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and In office Obergefell v. Hodges). He also co-authored the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of Judging
    TENTH ANNUAL JUDICIAL SYMPOSIUM THE ART OF1 JUDGINGcelebrating0 1celebrating0 1celebrating0 ten years it’s 10th year our 10th year NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE 1CELEBRATING0 TEN YEARS Course Materials July 2014 All views, opinions and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and/or speakers, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion and/or policy of NFJE and its leadership. © 2014 by NFJE 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, Illinois 60603 All rights reserved. No part of this product may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the express written permission of NFJE unless such copying is expressly permitted by fed- eral copyright law. Produced in the United States of America Course Materials Table of Contents The Will of the People: ........................................................................................................................1 How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution Barry E. Friedman Court Funding—The New Normal .................................................................................................17 Robert N. Baldwin Financial Influences on the Judiciary .............................................................................................33 Honorable Wallace B. Jefferson Financial Influences on the Judiciary .............................................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†
    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and Their Judges
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2016 The olitP ical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica Adam S. Chilton Jacob Goldin Kyle Rozema Maya Sen Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam Bonica, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, " The oP litical Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges" (Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 754, 2016). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Political Ideologies of Law Clerks and their Judges Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ February 29, 2016 We study the political ideology of judicial law clerks using a novel dataset that combines the most comprehensive data sources on political ideology and the identity of U.S. federal law clerks. First, we examine the distribu- tion of clerks' ideology and find that clerks tend to be disproportionately liberal, with clerks on lower courts being more liberal on average than clerks for higher courts. Second, we find that judges tend to consistently hire clerks with similar ideologies and that those ideologies track available measures of the judge's own ideology.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
    Case: 17-2218 Document: 00117347455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2018 Entry ID: 6202997 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 17-2218 JOSEPH A. BEBO, Petitioner, Appellant, v. SEAN MEDEIROS, Acting Superintendent, Respondent, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Selya, and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Elizabeth Prevett, with whom Federal Defender Office was on brief, for petitioner. Thomas E. Bocian, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, with whom Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief, for respondent. October 3, 2018 Case: 17-2218 Document: 00117347455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2018 Entry ID: 6202997 SELYA, Circuit Judge. With respect to federal habeas review of state criminal convictions, Congress has ordained an especially deferential standard of review, which compels us to look only at federal constitutional law as clearly established by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). This deferential standard sometimes results in situations in which a state court ruling may be deemed to pass constitutional muster on habeas review even though an identical federal court ruling might be deemed reversible error on direct review under circuit precedent. Thus, the question of what our circuit's case law would suggest is not before us in this habeas case. Based on Supreme Court case law, we conclude that the challenged state court ruling was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Consequently, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL The library is open to members of the bar of the Court, attorneys for the various Federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress. Only members of the bar of the Court may practice before the Supreme Court. The term of the Court begins, by law, the first Monday in October of each year and continues as long as the business before the Court requires, usually until about the end of June. Six members constitute a quorum. Approximately 7,000 cases are passed upon in the course of a term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice. Jurisdiction According to the and Fact, with such Exceptions, and Constitution (art. III, sec. 2), ``[t]he under such Regulations as the Congress judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, shall make.'' in Law and Equity, arising under this Appellate jurisdiction has been Constitution, the Laws of the United conferred upon the Supreme Court by States, and Treaties made, or which shall various statutes, under the authority be made, under their Authority;Ðto all given Congress by the Constitution. The Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;Ðto all basic statute effective at this time in Cases of admiralty and maritime conferring and controlling jurisdiction of Jurisdiction;Ðto Controversies to which the Supreme Court may be found in 28 the United States shall be a Party;Ðto U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1257±1259, Controversies between two or more and various special statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring
    Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring Adam Bonica, Adam Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, & Maya Sen∗ July 21, 2016 ∗Bonica: Stanford University, Department of Political Science, e-mail: [email protected]. Chilton: University of Chicago Law School, e-mail: [email protected]. Goldin: Stanford Law School, e-mail: js- [email protected]. Rozema: Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, e-mail: [email protected]. Sen: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, e-mail: maya [email protected]. For helpful com- ments, we are grateful to Omri Ben-Shahar, Erin Delaney, Joshua Fischman, Tom Ginsburg, William Hubbard, Tonja Jacobi, Jim Lindgren, Robin Kar, Anup Malani, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Jennifer Nou, Eric Posner, Max Schanzenbach, Matt Spitzer, Eugene Volokh, and seminar participants at the University of Chicago Law School and at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. We are grate- ful to Dan Katz for providing data on the identities of district court and circuit court clerks. Abstract We present a new measure of judicial ideology based on judicial hiring behavior. Specifically, we utilize the ideology of the law clerks hired by federal judges to estimate the ideology of the judges themselves. These Clerk-Based Ideology (CBI) scores complement existing measures of ju- dicial ideology in several ways. First, CBI scores can be estimated for judges across the federal judicial hierarchy. Second, CBI scores can cap- ture temporal changes in ideology. Third, CBI scores avoid case selection and strategic behavior concerns that plague existing vote-based measures. We illustrate the promise of CBI scores through a number of applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright (C) 2011 Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern University Law Review Winter, 2011 105 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1
    Page 1 Copyright (c) 2011 Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern University Law Review Winter, 2011 105 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1 FLEXING JUDICIAL MUSCLE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS Corey Rayburn Yung* BIO: * Associate Professor of Law at The John Marshall Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Frank Cross, Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Joshua Fischman, Craig Green, Andrew D. Martin, Sandy Olken, Judge Richard A. Posner, Lori Ringhand, David L. Schwartz, Carolyn Shapiro, the participants at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools Empirical Legal Studies Workshop, and the commentators at the Law & Society Associa- tion Annual Meeting and Conference on Empirical Legal Studies. For their diligent research, work, and technical support, I would especially like to thank Robert Breslin, Daniel Calandriello III, Ram- sey Donnell, Sandra Esposito, Christopher Hack, Miguel Larios, Raizel Liebler, Stephanie Lieber- man, and James Yung. Lastly, I want to thank John Corkery, Ralph Ruebner, and The John Mar- shall Law School without whose incredible support this project would not have been possible. [*2] Introduction Immediately following President Obama's nomination of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, critics branded her a "judicial activist" n1 who would work without regard to the "rule of law." n2 Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay contended that President Obama "couldn't have appointed a more activist judge" and that Sotomayor's activism made her unqualified for a seat on the Court. n3 Karl Rove said the Republicans could win the bat- tle against Sotomayor by "making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents." n4 On the first day of Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, proclaimed her to be an "activist judge that threatens the traditional foundation of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20543 phone (202) 479–3000 JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, NY, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children, Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–80 and as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 term. He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981–82, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Coun- sel’s Office from 1982–86, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989–93. From 1986–89 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, DC. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005. CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice, was born in the Pin Point community near Savannah, Georgia on June 23, 1948. He attended Conception Seminary from 1967–68 and received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College in 1971 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beauty of Conservatism the Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience
    The Beauty of Conservatism The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience Daniel Borchers The Beauty of Conservatism The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience Daniel J. Borchers Citizens for Principled Conservatism The Beauty of Conservatism: The Seduction of Ann Coulter and the Cuckolding of Conscience © 2011 Daniel Borchers First printing: December 8, 2011 All rights reserved. Written permission must be secured from the publisher to use or reproduce any part of this book, except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles. Citizens for Principled Conservatism believes that the nature and use of the photos, cartoons, and graphics provided in this book which are not in the public domain or not the property of the publisher constitutes “fair use” of any such material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. This material is intended primarily for educational purposes and is distributed freely. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Front and back cover design: Daniel Borchers Front cover photo: Americanpowerblog.blogspot.com, 2/11/11 Back cover photo: Politico.com, 2/14/11 All other photos obtained from the Internet and other open sources. Published by Citizens for Principled Conservatism. Printed in the United States of America. Daniel Borchers, President Citizens for Principled Conservatism P.O. Box 506 Odenton, MD 21113 www.CoulterWatch.com [email protected] 240-476-9690 Open rebuke is better than secret love. – Proverbs 27:5 (KJV) Table of Contents Preface: Alamo Remembered .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]