The Judicial Administrative Power
Article III of the Constitution confines the “judicial Power of the United States” to the adjudication of “cases” and “controversies.” In practice, however, federal judges exercise control over, and spend their scarce time on, a wide range of activities that traverse far beyond any individual adjudication. Typically classified as a form of “judicial administration,” these activities span everything from promulgating the rules of the various federal courts to overseeing federal pretrial detention services or choosing federal public defenders. This Article describes how judges became involved in these nonadjudicatory Article III activities, clarifies the activities’ relationship to Article III adjudication, and considers the role the activities play for the modern federal judiciary. We argue that the judicial administrative power has profound consequences that carry us far beyond baseline questions of whether or to what extent judicial administration facilitates or improves federal adjudication. We conclude with a set of proposed reforms that would respond to these challenges by treating the judicial administrative power as administrative first and judicial second—and not the other way around.
The Distinction Between Direct and Derivative Shareholder Claims
One of the primary methods for shareholders to seek redress for corporate misconduct is the shareholder suit, in which shareholders may assert either “direct” or “derivative” claims. Although the distinction between direct and derivative claims is often outcome-determinative, the specific rules governing that distinction have long been flawed, with courts and commentators calling those rules “subjective,” “opaque,” and “muddled.” Moreover, the predominant Tooley test prevents courts from addressing numerous management misdeeds, thus harming shareholders and impairing justice. This Article explains how the Tooley test is fundamentally intractable and leads to gaming by transactional planners. This Article proposes another test based on (1) the availability of alternative governance solutions, and (2) relative judicial competency.
“I Am Free but Without a Cent”: Economic Justice as Equal Citizenship
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the most-studied parts of the Constitution, but one of its central concerns has been long ignored by courts and scholars: economic justice. The rights of the poor and powerless to enjoy fundamental freedoms and meaningful equality lie at the very core of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history. The Supreme Court has failed to give these fundamental promises their due, producing a jurisprudence that turns a blind eye to the rights of poor people and reads the constitutional promise of economic justice out of our national charter. Recovering the true meaning of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as reflected in their text and history, would open the door to meaningful doctrinal changes that would help protect the rights of poor people and advance the effort to redress economic inequality.
Supreme Court Affirms Lawlessness of the Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
April 18, 2025 Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (2025) (Roberts, C.J., remanding for clarification of the District Court order) Response by Cori Alonso-Yoder & Tania N. Valdez Geo. Wash. L. Rev. On the Docket (Emergency Docket 2024-25) Slip Opinion | SCOTUSblog... Read More
Inconclusive History
Allen Rostron 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 26 This Essay argues that the Supreme Court should be willing to admit when history is inconclusive when analyzing issues from a historical perspective. In United States v. Rahimi, the Court stretched and strained to come up with historical justifications for its decision rather than simply acknowledging... Read More
Judging the Court’s Performance: There is Much More to Question than the Blockbusters
Alan B. Morrison 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 1 This Essay examines nine cases that the Court decided—many of them unanimously—and asks some rather mundane questions. Did the decision produce a winner and a loser, or was the outcome still unclear? Did the Court reach a conclusion where the record was fully developed? Did... Read More
Is Strict Scrutiny Too Strict? Remediating Racial Disparities in Environmental Hazard Exposure
Katie Metzger 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 189 As environmental justice issues garner national attention, legislatures have considered ways to address unequal exposure to environmental hazards. Some have passed laws that prioritize brownfield remediation grants to minority communities with the goal of getting grant money to communities that need it most. These laws are subject... Read More
Get in, Litigants: We’re Going Judge Shopping!
Shloke Singh Nair 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 159 Judge shopping, which is distinct from forum shopping, refers to the practice of plaintiffs strategically filing lawsuits in jurisdictions where they have a high probability of drawing a judge who will be favorable to them. Over the past few years, judge shopping has increasingly come under... Read More
The Unconscionably Short Warranty
Marie T. Reilly 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 105 A typical consumer product warranty covers products for defects that appear before the warranty period expires. If the manufacturer warrants a vehicle for five years or 60,000 miles, whichever occurs first, problems that require repairs after the warranty period expires are outside the warranty and, therefore,... Read More
The Scope of the Prior Art
John R. Thomas 93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 54 The courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) assess whether an invention may be patented by comparing it to the state of the art, which the patent community terms the “prior art.” Heavily influenced by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Learned Hand, and more... Read More
