Courtroom Proceedings in U.S. Federal Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Open Court ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
The U.S

This article discusses courtroom proceedings in U.S. federal courts. It begins by examining how federal district courts conduct trials. To make clear how these proceedings run it compares what really happens in most trials compared to how Hollywood portrays trials. In addition, it considers several key rights associated with trial proceedings. From there, it considers how federal circuit courts conduct business in open court. A key aspect of this section is how circuit proceedings differ across the country because each circuit has different rules governing arguments. Finally, it assesses the oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as how these proceedings may affect the decisions justices make. In each section it provides a descriptive overview of the processes and then discusses current research and direction for future analyses.

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

There is no impending crisis: a look beyond the Sixth Circuit’s decision to permit Section 1782 discovery for use in international commercial arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-108
Author(s):  
Jonathan J Tompkins
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous System ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Federal District Courts

Abstract There are few topics in international arbitration that engender more intense sentiments amongst practitioners than discovery. While debate endures over the applicability, suitability and extent of discovery within this autonomous system of justice, it is impossible to escape the reality that national laws and courts will and do have a role—often a significant one—to play in international arbitration proceedings, most notably to assist in the arbitral process. One US federal law in particular, 28 USC § 1782, has become increasingly relevant in recent years, as more parties attempt to harness its potency in facilitating discovery of evidence in aid of foreign arbitration. The application of the statute to foreign or international arbitral tribunals, however, is a murky question, and not one on which all US federal courts agree. Most recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit broke with some of its sister circuits in finding that discovery under section 1782 is permissible for use in foreign or international commercial arbitrations. While many have denounced the decision as contrary to, or arguably likely to render less effective, principles or aspects of international arbitration deemed sacrosanct by arbitration enthusiasts, the effect of the Sixth Circuit’s decision on the broader practice of arbitration must not be overstated. Practitioners, tribunals, and the US federal district courts in particular already have ample means at their disposal to thwart section 1782’s potentially broad reach and effectiveness in creating inequities or turmoil in arbitration proceedings. Channeled effectively, these tools and proper considerations of discretion can ensure an appropriate balance between the need for critical evidence and the prevention of drawn-out, inequitable, and inefficient arbitral proceedings.

Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage

2016 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 746-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Madonna ◽  
James E. Monogan ◽  
Richard L. Vining
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Collateral Damage ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legislative Agenda ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Presidential Success ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
Presidential Policy

Presidents often see a Supreme Court nomination as an opportunity to leave a lasting mark on policy. Recent studies speculate that focusing on Supreme Court nominees affects presidential success beyond the confirmation process, but this has not been established systematically. We develop and test a hypothesis stating that presidents who get into a battle to promote a controversial Supreme Court nominee will see delays and failures in their efforts to promote their legislative agenda in the Senate and fill lower level judicial vacancies. We test our theory using data on presidential policy agenda items from 1967 to 2010 and lower level judicial nominations from 1977 to 2010. We find that increased efforts in promoting confirmation reduce the likelihood of timely Senate approval of important policy proposals and nominees to federal district courts.

The Immediate Consequences of Federal Pretrial Detention

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Holmes Didwania
Keyword(s):  
Instrumental Variable ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Pretrial Release ◽  
Pretrial Detention ◽  
The Government ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Case Data

Abstract Unlike the cash-bail regimes that are prevalent in state courts, federal courts rarely use money bail as a condition of pretrial release. Nonetheless, this article presents evidence that pretrial release influences case outcomes for federal defendants. Using case data spanning 71 federal district courts, the article suggests that pretrial release reduces a defendant’s sentence and increases the probability that they will receive a sentence below the recommended sentencing range. Pretrial release also appears to lessen the probability that a defendant will receive a mandatory minimum sentence when one is charged. The analysis exploits variation in magistrate judges’ propensities to release defendants pending trial, which allows magistrate judge leniency to serve as an instrumental variable for pretrial release. The article also provides suggestive evidence that pretrial release affects case outcomes through two channels: first, by giving defendants the opportunity to present mitigating evidence at sentencing and second, by making it easier for defendants to earn a sentencing reduction by providing assistance to the government.

The impact of regulatory accumulation on U.S. Federal District Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
GREGORY M. RANDOLPH ◽  
JAMES FETZNER
Keyword(s):  
Social Issues ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Developed Economies ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
The U.S

AbstractWhile regulation is increasingly relied upon to address economic and social issues in developed economies, research has yet to examine the impact of the growing use of regulation on the courts. This paper explores the relationship between regulation and criminal judicial enforcement. Data regarding regulatory cases and defendants filed in U.S. district courts and regulation at the U.S. federal level are analyzed. The results suggest that increased reliance on regulation leads to growth in regulatory court cases and defendants filed. These findings imply that the courts continue to play an important role when regulation is employed to address problems and that the courts might experience increasing responsibilities as the use of regulation grows. Additionally, the results suggest that the relationship between regulation and the courts should be considered in the design and implementation of regulation in practice.

scholarly journals Non-Capital Habeas Cases after Appellate Review: An Empirical Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. King
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Law School ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Vanderbilt University

In 2007, researchers from the National Center for State Courts and Vanderbilt University Law School reported the findings from a study of litigation in 2384 randomly selected, non-capital habeas cases, approximately 6.5% of the non-capital habeas cases commenced in federal district courts in 2003 and 2004 by state prisoners. In this article, I update that report, including the cases that were pending when the 2007 report was prepared, following the study cases into the federal courts of appeals, and back into the state courts. Even after appellate review of denials and dismissals, the percentage of non-capital petitioners receiving federal habeas relief remains less than the 1% rate reported prior to AEDPA. Descriptive findings include appeals and requests to file successive petitions by circuit, and rulings on certificates of appealability by circuit. Detailed information regarding each case receiving relief in federal court is also included.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 966-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chimène I. Keitner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal District ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum is the United States Supreme Court’s second decision interpreting the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which was enacted by the First Congress as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The ATS provides that federal district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Absent the ATS, such claims could only be brought in state, not federal, courts.

scholarly journals (Un)Changing Rates of Pro Se Litigation in Federal Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-589
Author(s):  
Mark D. Gough ◽  
Emily S. Taylor Poppe
Keyword(s):  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court System ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Dramatic Rise ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
The U.S

There is widespread concern among scholars, court actors, and policy makers that the number of pro se litigants is increasing. However, we have little empirical evidence of the scope of pro se litigation, especially in the federal court system. Using data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on all civil case filings since 1999, we investigate the prevalence and rate of pro se litigation in federal district courts. We find no evidence of a dramatic rise in pro se litigation, but we document substantial variation in rates of pro se litigation by type of case and circuit of filing. The results have implications for our understanding of self-representation and for the development of policies addressing access to civil justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document