Suchergebnisse

The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals submitted its report and suggestions to the United States Congress and the President in December 1998. The Commission spent ten months studying the "structure and alignment of the Federal Court of Appeals system, with particular reference to the Ninth Circuit," and two months developing "recommendations for such changes in circuit boundaries or structure as may be appropriate for the expeditious and effective disposition of the caseload of the Federal Courts of Appeals, consistent with fundamental concepts of fairness and due process." The centerpiece of the Commission's proposal is the suggestion that Congress require the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to implement three regionally-based adjudicatory divisions and authorize the remaining appellate courts to institute divisional arrangements as they increase in size. Lawmakers intended that the Commission craft recommendations which would help Congress resolve the controversial, ongoing debate over the Ninth Circuit and to address the dramatic caseload expansion that has transformed the appeals courts from the institutions which they were a generation ago. Indeed, the Commission's report and proposals could well chart the destiny of the appellate courts for the twenty-first century. The suggestions proffered by the Commission have received great attention. Many federal court observers, including members of the judicial and legislative branches, have expended much energy analyzing and responding to the recommendations. In the commentators' apparent haste to praise or criticize the Commission's recommendations, they have essentially ignored the elaborate descriptive account of the appellate courts that the commissioners compiled. For instance, observers have neglected the Working Papers of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. This 348-page volume includes a number of studies which the Commission authorized and much information which it collected. The commissioners seemed to consult these materials closely in fashioning the report and proposals. The dearth of attention that commentators have accorded the Commission's description is remarkable. The Commission appeared to depend heavily on the descriptive account when drafting its report and suggestions. Change which is as drastic as the commissioners recommended in institutions that are as critical as the appeals courts should correspondingly have clear, substantial empirical support. The Commission also painted a rather detailed portrait of the appellate system or at least took numerous snapshots of the appeals courts, which yield instructive insights on them at the tum of the century and could inform their future reform and investigation. Indeed, the commissioners may well have constructed one of the richest modem accounts of those courts, thereby making the absence of scrutiny afforded the description even more striking. The descriptive account which the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals compiled warrants analysis. This article undertakes that effort. The first section evaluates the origins and development of the Commission and briefly describes its work. The second section selectively assesses the Commission's description and attempts to derive from the account useful perspectives on the twelve, specific regional circuits and the appellate system as well as additional, helpful lessons respecting the Commission's endeavors. Most significant, particular appeals courts appear to operate less efficaciously than they might. However, the empirical evidence which the Commission adduced appears insufficient to support definitive conclusions regarding the circuits' present condition, much less modifications that seem as dramatic as those which the commissioners proposed. The final section, therefore, suggests that Congress reject the Commission's recommendations and authorize further study, which should permit more conclusive determinations about the courts, or experimentation with promising measures.

The 106th Congress seriously considered proposed legislation that could profoundly affect the federal appellate courts, and the 107th Congress may well do so. The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, which performed a rather comprehensive, albeit incomplete, study of the tribunals, recommended this bill as the centerpiece of its report for Congress. The commissioners prescribed regionally-based adjudicative divisions for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for the remaining appellate courts when the courts increase in size, even as the commission decisively rejected the possibility of splitting the Ninth Circuit into multiple courts. The commissioners suggested that each of three divisions, with a majority of the division's judges resident in the specific area, exercise exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from district courts situated there and proposed a Circuit Division that would resolve conflicting opinions which the three entities issue. The commission asserted that this approach would enhance the consistency and coherence of circuit law, promote genuine judicial collegiality and link the appellate forum more closely to the region served. The commission deserves substantial credit for carefully evaluating the appeals courts and for developing recommendations that constitute a pragmatic political compromise. Should the divisional arrangement enable the Ninth Circuit to improve the quality of case resolution without disrupting daily operations, the organizational scheme might also afford an effective alternative for the other appellate courts as they expand. The remedy that the commissioners crafted could even be responsive to the dramatic docket growth which has transformed the appeals courts from the institutions that the tribunals were only a generation ago. However, the commission did not systematically collect, analyze and synthesize empirical data that show persuasively, much less definitively, that the appellate courts have encountered or now experience difficulties that are sufficiently problematic to warrant treatment. Indeed, the commissioners forthrightly acknowledged that they lacked adequate time to conduct n "statistically meaningful analysis" of the Ninth Circuit, even as the commission members found that each of the appeals courts operates efficaciously. Those candid admissions make particularly compelling the inadvisability of implementing solutions which seem as drastic and potentially ineffective as the divisional concept. All of these propositions mean that the report and suggestions that the commissioners recently issued deserve assessment. This Article undertakes that effort. I initially trace the historical developments which prompted the 105th Congress to authorize the establishment of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The paper then scrutinizes the entity's report and proposals and determines that the evidence the commission marshaled fails to support change that appears as inefficacious as the divisional structure in entities, which are as important as the appellate courts. The piece concludes by recommending that members of Congress approve additional study of the appeals courts and that the Ninth Circuit continue its experimentation with measures that promise to improve the appellate system.

While there is a fairly extensive literature on the relationship between weather and productivity, little research has focused on the impact of weather on judicial activity. The findings from the few investigations conducted arrive at different conclusions depending on the country. We contribute to this area of research by conducting the first analysis using French data. We propose an empirical analysis of the impact of outdoor temperature and rainfall levels on court decisions made in French courts of appeal during divorce proceedings, based on a sample of approximately 4,000 court decisions correlated with daily and geo-localized meteorological data. The analysis focuses on decisions regarding the amount of child support to be paid. We show that, all other things being equal, when it is very hot at night preceding the judgment, the panels of judges tend to set lower amounts of child support.

Plus: Court urged to stop Arkansas' social media age verification law from taking effect in September, legalizing medical marijuana linked to lower insurance premiums, and more...

In the recent case of Stern Produce Co. v. NLRB, Case No. 23‐1100 (2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has highlighted just how far the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will go to reach certain conclusions and has underscored the ongoing risks to employers that appear before the agency.

Elitism, Expediency, and the New Certiorari: Requiem for the Learned Hand Tradition is a thought-provoking critique of the United States Courts of Appeals. Professors William Richman and William Reynolds maintain that dramatic increases in appellate filings have transformed the appeals courts during the last quarter-century, prompting systemic constriction of procedural opportunities, particularly for parties with few resources or little power. The authors find these changes profoundly troubling and propose that Congress radically expand the number of appellate judges. Individuals and institutions, such as expert study committees, which have analyzed the federal courts, agree with much of the authors' descriptive assessment. Less consensus, and even some controversy, attend the writers' provocative suggestion that the creation of many additional judgeships will resolve the conundrum posed by growing dockets and numerous other difficulties which the appellate courts confront today. These factors mean that the authors' valuable contribution to understanding the appeals courts warrants a response. This essay undertakes that effort. My paper invokes a number of federal court studies and applies insights gleaned from the continuing debate which involves possible division of the Ninth Circuit. This court is instructive because its experience with mounting caseloads epitomizes developments in many regional circuits since the 1970s and typifies the treatment that the writers criticize. I first evaluate the authors' descriptive account and identify aspects of their discussion with which a number of federal court observers concur and differ, and I find considerable agreement about most of the features. For example, numerous analyses of the federal civil and criminal justice systems and the ongoing controversy over the Ninth Circuit reveal that the appellate courts have undergone a transformation in the past several decades. My response then assesses the writers' prescription. I ascertain that phenomena ascribed to multiplying appeals and many additional complications facing the appeals courts constitute a polycentric problem. This difficulty apparently requires application of a varied mix comprising myriad available solutions, but the precise combination of approaches which would be most efficacious remains unclear. The judiciary's expansion is only one potential remedy. However, it would also impose disadvantages, might be less effective than numerous alternative solutions, and might be politically unrealistic. The above difficulties show, μierefore, that Congress should appoint a national commission to evaluate the appellate system. I conclude with recommendations for creating this entity and for how it might proceed.