Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage

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.

Download Full-text

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

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/ajil.2018.7 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Courtroom Proceedings in U.S. Federal Courts

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579891.013.16 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Quo Vadis? From the Schoolyard to the Courtroom

Administrative Science Quarterly ◽

10.1177/0001839220922133 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 000183922092213 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maxim Sytch ◽

Yong H. Kim

Keyword(s):

Federal District ◽

Social Structures ◽

Legal Environment ◽

District Courts ◽

Legal Communication ◽

Legal Outcomes ◽

Quo Vadis ◽

Using Data ◽

Federal Judges ◽

Federal District Courts

Existing theories exploring how companies interact with the law stop short of unveiling whether and why companies can differentially pursue, interact with, and benefit from a particular legal environment. We theorize that companies can use social structures—shared educational and professional affiliations—between lawyers and judges to strategically pursue specific legal jurisdictions, influence judges’ discretion, and ultimately reap different legal outcomes from the same legal environment. Using data on such affiliations between lawyers and federal judges, we examine companies’ choice of U.S. federal district courts and their legal outcomes in patent infringement litigation from 1990 to 2013. Our results reveal that companies strategically pursue courts in which their lawyers have past educational or professional affiliations with the courts’ judges. If a desired judge is assigned to the case, a company leverages its lawyers’ social structures to tailor any legal communication to match that judge’s style. While such behavior results in a higher likelihood of winning a lawsuit, it also creates an inherent risk. In stacking their legal teams with lawyers who have connections to judges, companies often shortchange the human capital—lawyers’ skillsets—required to win a case, which adversely affects legal outcomes if the desired judge is not assigned to the case.

Download Full-text

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

Law & Social Inquiry ◽

10.1017/lsi.2019.69 ◽

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.

Download Full-text