scholarly journals The Value of Information in the Court: Get it Right, Keep it Tight

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matias Iaryczower ◽  
Matthew Shum
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

We estimate an equilibrium model of decision making in the US Supreme Court that takes into account both private information and ideological differences between justices. We measure the value of information in the court by the probability that a justice votes differently from how she would have voted without case-specific information. Our results suggest a sizable value of information: in 44 percent of cases, justices' initial leanings are changed by their personal assessments of the case. Our results also confirm the increased politicization of the Supreme Court in the last quarter century. Counterfactual simulations provide implications for institutional design. (JEL D72, D82, D83, K10)

Federalism Theories and Principles of the US Supreme Court—Implications for National and State Powers and Public Policy and Administration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Wise
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract This article reviews and analyzes the federalism theories and principles that the US Supreme Court has employed during various eras and compares and contrasts them. It does this by specifying the major theoretical frameworks that have been proposed for Supreme Court federalism decision making and then examines how the Supreme Court has employed their components during various eras. It then draws implications for public policy and administration and poses research questions for the future.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

The Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule: Blurring the Line Between Rule and Exception

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

The admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings has generated controversy throughout the common law world. In the United States, there has been renewed debate in recent years over the propriety of the judicially-created exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. When defining the scope and purpose of the rule, the US Supreme Court has placed ever increasing emphasis on the likely deterrent effect which suppressing evidence will exert on law enforcement. This article explores the consequent restriction of the exclusionary rule evinced in the contemporary case law including United States v Herring in which the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the so-called "good faith" exception. In conclusion it offers reflection from the perspective of another common law country, Ireland, where the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence has been the subject of debate.

US Supreme Court will generate greater controversy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Court Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Political Backlash

Significance The decision to hold a hearing on this issue, rather than simply issue a decision, reflects a degree of concern about perceptions of the Court’s legitimacy following the transfer of the country’s currently polarised politics onto the Court through recent appointments. Impacts The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is so dominant that no liberal decisions are likely in the foreseeable future. Chief Justice Roberts will try on occasion to moderate the Court’s conservative decision-making but mostly without effect. The recent report from President Joe Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court will prove ineffectual. Upcoming cases will provoke a political backlash among voters and make Court reform a central preoccupation for some Democrats.

Women Lawyers before the Supreme Court of Canada

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin B. Kaheny ◽  
John J. Szmer ◽  
Tammy A. Sarver
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Voting Behaviour ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Women Lawyers ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Abstract. Recent work by Szmer, Sarver, and Kaheny (2010) exploring US Supreme Court decision making has suggested that lawyer gender might play a role in influencing judicial voting behaviour. Specifically, while women lawyers were not revealed to have a more difficult time winning cases before the US Supreme Court, the study did suggest they face a tougher challenge in gaining support from the more conservative justices on that bench. Here, we test whether women lawyers face similar challenges before the SCC. Our findings do not reveal any disadvantage for litigation teams with larger proportions of women and, in most instances, such teams have an advantage. Specifically, in our model of civil rights and liberties votes, litigation team gender had no bearing on individual SCC justice decisions. However, in a pooled model of all issues combined and in separate models of criminal and economic votes, SCC justices were more likely to side with litigation teams with larger proportions of women lawyers.Résumé. Une étude récente de Szmer, Sarver et Kaheny (2010) explore la manière dont la Cour suprême des États-Unis prend ses décisions, suggérant que le sexe des avocats pourrait avoir une influence sur le comportement décisionnel des juges. Plus spécifiquement, bien que les avocates n'aient pas plus de difficulté que leurs collègues masculins à gagner leurs procès à la Cour suprême des États-Unis, l'étude suggère que leur plus grand défi est d'obtenir le soutien des juges plus traditionnels de cette cour. Dans le présent article, nous cherchons à déterminer si les avocates canadiennes font face à un défi semblable à la Cour suprême du Canada. Les résultats de notre étude ne révèlent aucun désavantage pour les équipes d'avocats comprenant plus de femmes et dans la plupart des cas, ces équipes bénéficient même d'un avantage. Plus précisement, dans notre modèle décisionnel en matière de droits et libertés civiles, le sexe des membres des équipes d'avocats n'avait aucune incidence sur les décisions individuelles des juges de la Cour suprême du Canada. Cependant, dans un modèle commun réunissant tous les types de dossiers et dans des modèles séparés pour les décisions sur des dossiers criminels et financiers, les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada étaient plus enclins à prendre parti pour des équipes comportant une plus grande proportion d'avocates.

Six Notions of ‘Political’ and the United States Supreme Court

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hodder-Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Six different notions of ‘political’ are commonly used in discussions of the US Supreme Court. All six are familiar, but the distinctions among them are seldom carefully drawn. The six are: (1) purely definitional, in the sense that the Supreme Court, as an appellate court of last resort inevitably authoritatively allocates values; (2) empirical, in the sense that litigants use the Court to try to achieve their political purposes; (3) influence seeking, in the sense that the justices have a natural desire to prevail in arguments within the court; (4) prudential, in the sense that the justices frequently consider the probable consequences of their decisions; (5) policy-oriented, in the – usually pejorative – sense that justices are said to use the Court and the law as a cover for pursuing their own policy and other goals; and (6) systemic, in the sense that the Court's decisions frequently, as a matter of fact, have consequences for other parts of the American political system. These six notions are considered in the context of recent abortion decisions.

scholarly journals CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE OBJECTIONS OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 665-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uta Kohl
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

AbstractThe almost two decade-long bonanza of civil litigation concerning gross human rights violations committed by corporations under the US Alien Tort Statute 1789 was scaled back by the US Supreme Court in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum in April 2013. The court restricted the territorial reach of human rights claims against transnational corporations by holding that the presumption against extra-territoriality applied to the Act. Thus Shell, the Dutch/British defendant, and the role it played in the brutal suppression by the Nigerian military of the Ogoni peoples' protest movement against the environmental devastation caused by oil exploration, lay outside the territorial scope of the Act. Legal accountability must lie in a State with a stronger connection with the dispute. While this article briefly engages with the Supreme Court decision, its main focus is on the attitude of Western governments to the corporate human rights litigation under the ATS as articulated in their amicus briefs. In these briefs they objected to the statute's excessive extraterritoriality and horizontal application of human rights to artificial non-State actors. In these two respects corporate ATS litigation created significant inroads into the conventional State-centric approach to human rights and thus provided an opportunity for more effective human rights enjoyment. This article tests the validity of the objections of Western governments to corporate human rights obligations under the ATS against the norms of public international law and against the substantive demands arising out of the shortfalls of the international human rights enforcement.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

scholarly journals Can Structural Changes Fix the Supreme Court?

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-142
Author(s):  
Daniel Hemel
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Term Limits ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Age Limits ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Normative Implications

Proposals for structural changes to the US Supreme Court have attracted attention in recent years amid a perceived “legitimacy crisis” afflicting the institution. This article first assesses whether the court is in fact facing a legitimacy crisis and then considers whether prominent reform proposals are likely to address the institutional weaknesses that reformers aim to resolve. The article concludes that key trends purportedly contributing to the crisis at the court are more ambiguous in their empirical foundations and normative implications than reformers often suggest. It also argues that prominent reform proposals—including term limits, age limits, lottery selection of justices, and explicit partisan balance requirements for court membership—are unlikely to resolve the institutional flaws that proponents perceive. It ends by suggesting a more modest (though novel) reform, which would allocate two lifetime appointments per presidential term and allow the size of the court to fluctuate within bounds.

Binding non-signatories to arbitrate—the United States approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrijana Mišović
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
New York Convention

Abstract Parties’ consent to the arbitration is the basis for tribunal’s authority to decide the case and, as such, is of fundamental importance in any arbitration proceedings. Commercial reality, however, often requires from the so called ‘non-signatories’ of the contract containing an arbitration clause to participate in performance of such contract. Being sensitive to such commercial concerns, the US courts have developed different domestic theories for binding the non-signatories. Recent ruling of the US Supreme Court holds that such domestic theories are also applicable in cases governed by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (incorporating New York Convention). However, the Supreme Court did not resolve the question which law should be applied to the issue of binding the non-signatories. Although US courts might be more inclined to apply federal principles to this issue, this is not the only possible solution based on the current SCOTUS case-law. The US court could also resort to the choice of law analysis and apply appropriate (foreign) state principles for binding the non-signatories. However, different states clearly have different views of the issue of binding the non-signatories, as this article briefly outlines. Thus, the same factual pattern might lead to completely different results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document