Civil Procedure
Wayfair Undermines Nicastro: The Constitutional Connection Between State Tax Authority and Personal Jurisdiction
This Essay exposes connections between two controversial cases that unsettled two ostensibly distinct areas of constitutional law—Wayfair v. South Dakota and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro—arguing that Wayfair’s underlying logic warrants narrowing or overruling Nicastro.
An Avoidance Canon for Erie: Using Federalism to Resolve Shady Grove’s Conflicts Analysis Problem
Since the Supreme Court's tripartite split in Shady Grove, federal courts have struggled to determine whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and a state law conflict under Erie. This Note proposes a novel federalism-based avoidance canon to identify such conflicts.
Nonmajority Opinions and Biconditional Rules
In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. This Essay identifies the complications that arise in addressing this question when biconditional rules are involved and proposes a way to coherently resolve those difficulties.
Litigation Rulemaking
Courts and agencies are traditionally understood to interact in two ways: judicial review and agency determinations of which cases reach federal courthouses. This Note identifies and evaluates a third dynamic by which agencies across the federal bureaucracy shape how cases proceed in court using the various tools at their disposal.
The Tarnished Golden Rule: The Corrosive Effect of Federal Prevailing-Party Standards on State Reciprocal-Fee Statutes
Drawing on the authors’ clinical experience, this Comment describes an asymmetry in how courts award attorney’s fees that makes it more difficult for consumer-defendants to recover the costs of litigation. The Comment articulates a standard of “prevailing party” that would ensure equitable and efficient attorney’s fee awards when consumer-defendants win.
Returning to Common-Law Principles of Insider Trading After United States v. Newman
Justice Sotomayor and the Jurisprudence of Procedural Justice
In this Essay, Professors Tyler and Meares highlight the ways in which recent social science research supports the model of jurisprudence articulated by Justice Sotomayor. Her model defines building identification with political and legal institutions as an important goal for the Court. It further suggests that this goal is best achieved when the Court exercises its authority using just procedures. That perspective is consistent with research on the foundations of popular legitimacy demonstrating that perceived procedural justice of the Court most strongly shapes it. Social science findings further reveal the factors shaping popular conceptions of procedural justice.
The Disappearance of Civil Trial in the United States
122 Yale L.J. 522 (2012). Since the 1930s, the proportion of civil cases concluded at trial has declined from about 20% to below 2% in the federal courts and below 1% in state courts. This Article looks to the history of the civil trial to explain why the trial endured so long and then vanished so rapidly. For the litigants, a civil procedure system serves two connected functions: investigating the facts and adjudicating the dispute. The better the system investigates and clarifies the facts, the more it promotes settlement and reduces the need to adjudicate. The Anglo-American common law for most of its history paid scant attention to the investigative function. This Article points to the role of the jury system in shaping the procedure and restricting the investigative function. Pleading was the only significant component of pretrial procedure, and the dominant function of pleading was to control the jury by narrowing to a single issue the question that the jury would be asked to decide. This primitive pretrial process left trial as the only occasion at which it was sometimes possible to investigate issues of fact. Over time, the jury-free equity courts developed techniques to enable litigants to obtain testimonial and documentary evidence in advance of adjudication. The fusion of law and equity in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of 1938 brought those techniques into the merged procedure, and expanded them notably. The signature reform of the Federal Rules was to shift pretrial procedure from pleading to discovery. A new system of civil procedure emerged, centered on the discovery of documents and the sworn depositions of parties and witnesses. Related innovations, the pretrial conference and summary judgment, reinforced the substitution of discovery for trial. This new procedure system has overcome the investigation deficit that so afflicted common law procedure, enabling almost all cases to be settled or dismissed without trial. Pretrial procedure has become nontrial procedure by making trial obsolete.
Locking the Doors to Discovery? Assessing the Effects of Twombly and Iqbal on Access to Discovery
121 Yale L.J. 2270 (2012). Many observers believe the Supreme Court’s Twombly and Iqbal opinions have curtailed access to civil justice. But previous empirical studies looking only at Rule 12(b)(6) grant rates have failed to capture the full effect of these cases because they have not accounted for party selection—changes in party behavior that can be expected following changes in pleading standards. In this Note, I show how party selection can be expected to undermine the empirical usefulness of simple grant-rate comparisons. I then use a conceptual model of party behavior that allows me to derive an adjusted measure of Twombly/Iqbal’s impact and show how to estimate a lower bound on this measure using data from recent studies by the Federal Judicial Center. My empirical results suggest that, depending on the nature of the suit in question, Twombly and Iqbal have negatively affected plaintiffs in at least 15% to 21% of cases that faced Rule 12(b)(6) motions in the post-Iqbal data window. Again depending on the nature of the suit, these figures represent between one-fourth and two-fifths of the cases that fail to reach discovery on at least some claims in the post-Iqbal data window.
Mandatory and Fair? A Better System of Mandatory Arbitration
121 Yale L.J. 2346 (2012). This Note proposes a set of reforms that address the problem of systematic bias in mandatory arbitration. Until now, mandatory arbitration literature has focused largely on the pros and cons of the practice rather than on solutions to improve this form of dispute resolution. This Note seeks to shift the debate by showing how institution-level protections can preserve both fairness and efficiency in mandatory arbitration. I argue that the best means of enforcement would be to create a cause of action that enables government prosecutors to bring suit to impose monetary penalties on systematically biased arbitration providers and the businesses who hire them. The threat of such litigation, combined with mandatory data disclosure, will incentivize negotiated self-regulation and result in fairer practices. Because individuals will not be able to appeal their specific arbitration decisions under this system, mandatory arbitration’s central advantage of efficiency will be preserved.
Burden of Proof
121 Yale L.J. 738 (2012). The burden of proof is a central feature of all systems of adjudication, yet one that has been subject to little normative analysis. This Article examines how strong evidence should have to be in order to assign liability when the objective is to maximize social welfare. In basic settings, there is a tradeoff between deterrence benefits and chilling costs, and the optimal proof requirement is determined by factors that are almost entirely distinct from those underlying the preponderance of the evidence rule and other traditional standards. As a consequence, these familiar burden of proof rules have some surprising properties, as do alternative criteria that have been advanced. The Article also considers how setting the proof burden interacts with other features of legal system design: the determination of enforcement effort, the level of sanctions, and the degree of accuracy of adjudication. It compares and contrasts a variety of legal environments and methods of enforcement, explaining how the appropriate proof requirements differ qualitatively across contexts. Most of the questions raised and answers presented differ in kind—as well as in result—from those in prior literature.