University of Memphis Digital Commons
Not a member yet
43176 research outputs found
Sort by
Residence of W.A. Smith
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1342/thumbnail.jp
Central High School
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1367/thumbnail.jp
Residence of L.T. Kavanaugh
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1382/thumbnail.jp
Residence of M.E. Carter
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1398/thumbnail.jp
Residence of J.B. Goodbar
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1267/thumbnail.jp
Residence of W.B. Mallory
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1259/thumbnail.jp
Residence of Mrs. Walter A. Goodman and Mrs. John M. Richardson
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1289/thumbnail.jp
Residence of D.W. Fly
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1272/thumbnail.jp
The Rule of Law\u27s Lack of Rules
No full textThis Article critiques the reliance on judge-made standards by the Supreme Court, arguing that such standards, while flexible and comprehensive, create significant challenges in application, particularly in lower courts. Standards, characterized by broad and adaptable language, grant judges considerable discretion, often resulting in inconsistent and unworkable outcomes. This phenomenon contributes to what Ran Hirschl terms “juristocracy,” where the judiciary exerts considerable influence over significant social, political, and economic issues, often due to implied deference from other branches of government. The analysis highlights the operational difficulties standards pose, especially the lack of objective criteria, which can lead to judicial misapplication and legal uncertainty. It further explores how this judicial discretion undermines predictability and stability in the law, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and executive deference. By examining several appellate cases, this Article highlights the discrepancies and risks associated with the use of standards, emphasizing the need for the Supreme Court to adopt clearer, more rigid rules tethered closely to the Constitution’s text. This Article proposes that the Court should favor explicit rules over malleable standards to promote greater consistency and protection of individual rights, reducing judicial overreach and enhancing legal clarity. This shift would mitigate the juristocratic tendencies observed in the current judicial landscape and ensure that constitutional adjudication remains more aligned with democratic principles and less susceptible to individual judicial interpretations
The Roberts Court and the District Court
No full textThe 2022 and 2023 Supreme Court terms were “blockbusters.”1 From the rousing dissents in Trump v. United States2 to the death knell of Chevron deference3 and the intense debates over the role of history in judicial decision-making encapsulated in Vidal v. Elster,4 the past several terms have provided both significant insight into decisionmaking processes at the Court and substantial change to previously settled law. Its impacts are already the subject of a slew of writing, both in legal journals and the popular press.5 Largely missing from the conversation is discussion of the high Court’s impacts on district courts. While academics extol the virtues of “percolation” of legal thought through the district courts,6 the impact of Supreme Court decisions on the lower courts is often overlooked in scholarship. Critical analysis of how the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence plays out at the district court level is especially important in the era of falling trust in the judiciary. District courts are where most people encounter the justice system. Compared to only 4,159 cases filed before the Supreme Court and 39,987 cases filed in federal courts of appeal in FY 2023, the district courts saw 339,731 filings.8 The average American is unlikely to meet, speak to, or appear before a court of appeals, but over a quarter of the U.S. population will serve on a jury. This Article will assess the ways that the Roberts Courts’ opinions increase workload at the district court level, leading to longer case disposition times, decreases in outcome predictability, and reduced individual attention that can decrease trust in the judicial system