scholarly journals The Impact of Courts of Appeals on Substantive and Procedural Success in the Federal District Courts

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Boyd
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
GREGORY M. RANDOLPH ◽  
JAMES FETZNER

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.


2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. King

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document