Issue Archives

The discovery process is the most distinctive feature of American civil procedure. Discovery has been referred to as procedureโ€™s โ€œbackboneโ€ and its โ€œcentralโ€ axis. Yet 98% of American cases take place in state judiciaries where there is little to no discovery. Most state court cases involve unrepresented parties litigating debt collection, eviction, family law, and employment claims. And the state rules of procedure rarely give these...

THE INSTITUTIONAL MISMATCH OF STATE CIVIL COURTS

Colleen F. Shanahan,* Jessica K. Steinberg,** Alyx Mark*** & Anna E. Carpenter****

State civil courts are central institutions in American democracy. Though designed for dispute resolution, these courts function as emergency rooms for social needs in the face of the failure of the legislative and executive branches to disrupt or mitigate inequality. We reconsider national case data to analyze the presence of social needs in state civil cases. We then use original data from courtroom observation and interviews to theorize how...

Local organizations that lie outside of the scope of legal aid nonetheless engage legal processes. Such organizations draw on courts, lawyers, and legal problems as a basis for mobilizing and power building in racially and economically marginalized communities. They work within such communities to provide support navigating courts, obtaining legal representation, contesting unfair legal practices, and much more. These activities position local...

JUDGING WITHOUT A J.D.

Sara Sternberg Greene* & Kristen M. Renberg**

One of the most basic assumptions of our legal system is that when two parties face off in court, the case will be adjudicated before a judge who is trained in the law. This Essay begins by showing that, empirically, the assumption that most judges have legal training does not hold true for many low-level state courts. Using data we compiled from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, we find that thirty-two states allow at least some low-level...

A COURT OF TWO MINDS

Bert I. Huang*

What do the Justices think theyโ€™re doing? They seem to act like appeals judges, who address questions of law as needed to reach a decisionโ€”and yet also like curators, who single out only certain questions as worthy of the Supreme Courtโ€™s attention. Most of the time, the Courtโ€™s โ€œappellate mindโ€ and its โ€œcurator mindโ€ are aligned because the Justices choose to hear cases where a curated question of interest is also central to the...

THE COSTS OF MISTAKES

Maytal Gilboa* & Yotam Kaplan**

This Piece provides a novel framework guiding adjudication in cases of mistakes, such as unintended money transfers. We draw on Guido Calabresiโ€™s seminal work, The Costs of Accidents, to introduce a parallel framework for mistakes and detail its operation and embodied policy considerations. We explain that mistakes, unlike accidents, can be socially harmless. When a mistake is harmless, the law acts to protect the mistaken party, thereby...

DISCLOSURES FOR EQUITY

Atinuke O. Adediran*

This Article addresses how to increase funding to nonprofit organizations that are led by minorities or serve communities of color and how to hold corporations and private foundations who make public commitments to fund these organizations accountable for those commitments. The Article makes two policy recommendations to address these problems, while engaging with Supreme Court jurisprudence on mandatory disclosures to ensure that the proposals...

Black communities have been surveilled by governmental institutions and law enforcement agencies throughout the history of the United States. Most recently, law enforcement has turned to monitoring social media, devoting an increasing number of resources and time to surveilling various social media platforms. Yet this rapid increase in law enforcement monitoring of social media has not been accompanied by a corresponding development in legal protections....

CERTIORARI IN IMPORTANT CASES

Tejas N. Narechania*

The Supreme Court has wide discretion to choose the cases it will decide. But how does the Court exercise this discretion? The Supreme Courtโ€™s rules explain that it may hear any case โ€œimportantโ€ enough for it to decide. Unsurprisingly, commentators have criticized this standard as โ€œhopelessly indeterminateโ€ and โ€œintentionally vague.โ€

The Court, however, has said more about how it decides whether to grant review. We need simply...

Wildfires throughout the West are a drastic consequence of climate change. In California especially, the costs of wildfires have become unbearable. Current statutory solutions, such as Assembly Bill 1054 (AB-1054), focus on apportioning liability for damages between insurance companies, government programs, and the electric utilities that often spark the fires, but legislation often fails to address the factors that make damages so astronomical...