United States District Courts Research Articles

The Termination of Intra-EU Investor-state Arbitration and the Enforceability of Intra-EU Awards in the United States District Courts

The Termination of Intra-EU Investor-state Arbitration and the Enforceability of Intra-EU Awards in the United States District Courts

Sentencing departures and focal concerns: The joint effect of race and gender on departures in United States district courts, 2014 – 2016

ABSTRACT The current study aims to examine the joint effects of defendant race and gender on (1) downward sentencing departures (likelihood and length) and (2) upward sentencing departures (likelihood and length) in federal criminal courts. Using federal criminal cases sentenced between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016, a series of multivariate logistic and ordinary least squares regression models are used to isolate the effects of defendant race and gender (and their intersections) on departure decisions. Findings indicate that greater punitiveness for minorities in departure decisions are exclusive to Black males. Further, females of all race/ethnic groups examined are consistently advantaged in departure decisions when compared to White men. Findings regarding Hispanics indicate little difference in departure decisions compared to Whites, but where differences exist it is to the advantage of Hispanics. Findings and implications are discussed in light of focal concerns perspective and prior research.

IP Litigation in United States District Courts: 1994 to 2014

This article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of Intellectual Property (IP) litigation in United States federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of more than 190,000 individual case filings and examines the subject matter, geographical and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades. This article makes a number of significant contributions to our understanding of IP litigation. It analyzes time trends in copyright, patent and trademark litigation filings at the national level, but it does much more than simply count the number of cases; it explores the meaning behind those numbers and shows how in some cases the observable headline data can be positively misleading. Exploring the changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution leads to a number of significant insights, these are summarized below. Just as importantly, one of the key contributions of this article is that it frames the context for more fine-grained empirical studies in the future. Many of the results and conclusions herein demonstrate the dangers of basing empirical conclusions on narrow slices of data from selected regions or selected time periods. Some of the key findings of this study are as follows: First, the rise of Internet file-sharing has transformed copyright litigation in the United States. More specifically, to the extent that the rate of copyright litigation has increased over the last two decades, that increase appears to be entirely attributable to lawsuits against anonymous Internet file sharers. These lawsuits largely took place in two distinct phases: the first phase largely consisted of lawsuits seeking to discourage illegal downloading; the second phase largely consists lawsuits seeking to monetize online infringement. Second, in relation to patent litigation, the apparent patent litigation explosion between 2010 and 2012 is something of a mirage; however there has been a sustained patent litigation inflation over the last two decades the extent of which has not been fully recognized until now. The reason why this steady inflation was mistaken for a sudden explosion was that the true extent of patent litigation was disguised by permissive joinder.Third, in relation to the geography of IP litigation, it appears that filings in copyright, patent and trademark litigation are generally highly correlated. The major exceptions to that correlation are driven by short term idiosyncratic events in copyright and trademark litigation — these are discussed in detail — and by the dumbfounding willingness of the Eastern district Texas to engage in forum selling to attract patent litigation. The popularity of the Eastern District of Texas as a forum for patent litigation is a well-known phenomenon. However, the data and analysis presented in this study provides a new way of looking at the astonishing ascendancy of this district and the problem of form shopping in patent law more generally.

Anabolic Steroid Cases in United States District Courts (2013–2017): Defendant Characteristics, Geographical Dispersion, and Substance Origins

This study examined contextual factors associated with 63 anabolic–androgenic steroid (AAS) cases involving 184 defendants in 41 United States District Courts. Information came from press releases distributed electronically by the U.S. Department of Justice across a 5-year period, January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. In addition to the demographic characteristics of defendants and the regions in which cases took place, the study considered the number of defendants per case, the nations from which AAS or raw materials had been imported, the presence of illicit substances beyond AAS, allegations of additional crimes, and whether a case involved public safety personnel. Courts in the South Atlantic division, and especially courts in Florida, heard the most cases involving the most defendants. Additionally, in 27 of 63 cases, defendants had obtained AAS or raw materials used to manufacture AAS from China; and in 12 of 63 cases, former police officers appeared as defendants. The study observes that more AAS sellers appear to be purchasing raw powders and liquids in bulk, using “homebrewing” techniques to increase profits and reduce counterfeiting. The relatively large number of cases in Florida may have reflected crackdowns on “pill mills” and the high-profile Biogenesis case.

Gender, expert advice, and judicial gatekeeping in the United States

This article investigates the role of gender in decision-making by examining trial judges' decisions to admit or exclude expert witness testimony. An analysis of civil rights cases in United States district courts (n = 198) reveals that male judges are substantially more likely than females to exclude expert evidence. Importantly, this pattern cannot be attributed to other characteristics of judges, experts, or courts that may influence judges’ rulings. These findings are consistent with theories of gender, organizations, and science that suggest that women are more likely than men to consider expert advice. These results also indicate that the organizational role of trial judge may not be enough to offset the wider effects of the gender system on perceptions of experts.

Class Actions in the Federal Circuit

Class Actions in the Federal Circuit

United States District Courts and Judges of Arkansas, 1836–1960 ed. by Frances Mitchell Ross, and: Distinguishing the Righteous from the Roguish: The Arkansas Supreme Court, 1836–1874 By J. W. Looney

United States District Courts and Judges of Arkansas, 1836–1960 ed. by Frances Mitchell Ross, and: Distinguishing the Righteous from the Roguish: The Arkansas Supreme Court, 1836–1874 By J. W. Looney

IP Litigation in United States District Courts - 2015 Update

In a previous paper, IP Litigation in United States District Courts: 1994 to 2014, I undertook a broad-based empirical review of Intellectual Property litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. This brief update extends that data to include the year 2015. This update contains new data on: (1) the overall state of copyright, patent and trademark litigation, (2) copyright litigation and the John Doe phenomenon, (3) the continuation of the patent litigation explosion and (4) the geographic distribution of copyright, patent and trademark litigation. This Update is not intended as a stand-alone article, it should be read in conjunction with the previous paper.

Events Unrelated to Crime Predict Criminal Sentence Length

In United States District Courts for federal criminal cases, prison sentence length guidelines are established by the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the defendant. In this paper, we investigate the sentence length determined by the trial judge, relative to this sentencing guideline. Our goal is to create a prediction model of sentencing length and include events unrelated to crime, namely weather and sports outcomes, to determine if these unrelated events are predictive of sentencing decisions and evaluate the importance weights of these unrelated events in explaining rulings. We find that while several appropriate features predict sentence length, such as details of the crime committed, other features seemingly unrelated, including daily temperature, baseball game scores, and location of trial, are predictive as well. Unrelated events were, surprisingly, more predictive than race, which did not predict sentencing length relative to the guidelines. This is consistent with recent research on racial disparities in sentencing that highlights the role of prosecutors in making charges that influence the maximum and minimum recommended sentence. Finally, we attribute the predictive importance of date to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Booker, after which sentence length more frequently fell near the guideline minimum and the range of minimum and maximum sentences became more extreme.

Bulk Telephony Metadata Collection and the Fourth Amendment: The Case for Revisiting the Third-Party Disclosure Doctrine the Digital Age

Thus far, two United States District Courts have considered the legality of the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection and have reached opposite conclusions. This Paper argues that federal courts should seize on the opportunity presented by the Snowden leaks to reexamine the continued vitality of the current third-party disclosure doctrine in Fourth Amendment cases. Specifically, this Paper will argue that Smith v. Maryland simply cannot continue to act as the “North Star” for judges navigating the “Fourth Amendment waters” of the digital age. Instead, this Paper argues that Smith should apply more narrowly in the digital age. In doing so, this Paper advocates that courts apply a modified, two-step test to third-party disclosures rather than applying the traditional binary rubric that courts have drawn from Smith and United States v. Miller — i.e., if information is disclosed that information is unprotected. Specifically, this Paper suggests that courts ask first, what individuals reasonably expect the scope of their disclosure to be and, second, whether a particular surveillance program is capable of revealing information beyond what those individuals reasonably expected to reveal. If the technology reveals information beyond that which individuals reasonably expected to reveal, then the use of such technology implicates the Fourth Amendment.

Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities: A History of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

There are ninety-four federal district courts in the United States. These are the courts where litigation begins; they are the “work horses” of the federal court system. In 2008–9 the US Supreme Court heard 87 cases, the United States Courts of Appeal heard 58,000 cases, and the United States District courts heard 353,00 cases. Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities is the story of one of these federal district courts, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The federal court in Philadelphia was one of the first district courts set up by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and this book covers the court from its inception to the present. The author, Harvey Bartle III, was appointed to the court in 1991 and served as its Chief Judge from 2006 to 2011. The volume, according to Judge Bartle, “is intended not only to memorialize the story of this court, but also to serve as a reminder of the consequential role that this court has played” in the history of the federal judiciary.Many of the important cases in the legal canon had their beginnings in the Eastern District Court. U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co. (1895) is one of them. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court that a monopoly of manufacturing did not mean a restraint of trade. This decision seriously weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), dealing with the separation of church and state, also began in Pennsylvania. The question involved a Pennsylvania state law that provided public funds to pay teacher salaries in sectarian schools. The district court upheld the law, but the Supreme Court overturned the district court and ruled this law was “an excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The Supreme Court did allow some governmental aid for sectarian schools and developed the “Lemon” test for allowable expenditures.There are many such cases detailed by the author, cases that are important historically, or legally significant, or cases that are representative of a particular era. But also included in this history are little-known cases. Some of the unique cases include the case of seaman Holmes, who after a shipwreck threw fourteen passengers out of a sinking lifeboat to their deaths. He was charged with homicide but convicted of manslaughter and the sentence was later remitted. I wonder if the classic Ethics 101 problem of “who would you throw out of a life boat” originated with United States v. Holmes (1842).The composition of the court reflected American legal society. Through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and for most of the twentieth century, the justices were white, male, and mainly Protestant. Bartle's history of the Pennsylvania district court is also a history of diversity in the legal profession. The first African American justice, A. Leon Higgenbotham Jr., was appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1963. The first female justice, Norma Shapiro, was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1978. There are now twenty-two justices sitting on the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court and they represent the multicultural nation we have become.My criticism of the book is that it can be repetitious: one judge from an old Pennsylvania family and prestigious law firm succeeding another judge from an old Pennsylvania family and prestigious law firm. This narrative occurs over and over again and begins to resemble the first chapter of Matthew tracing the genealogy of Jesus. I realize the author feels all the justices of the court are important to the history of the court; I just wish the author had left some details to footnotes.I believe this book would be a very good resource for graduate students looking for a thesis or dissertation topic. Much has been written about the decisions of the Supreme Court, but this book points out the need for more research on the early life of a case, where the first determination of the law occurs, in a district court. I would recommend Mortals with Tremendous Responsibilities for legal libraries, instructors of political science and history, and anyone interested in legal history. It is a fine historical narrative of an important federal district court.

Reaching Out: Understanding the Puzzle of Cross-Party Nominations to the Lower United States Federal Courts

Scholars have argued that U.S. presidents use their judicial appointments to advance their political goals. However, on rare occasions, presidents nominate people who are not members of their political party to the judiciary. This study will examine the factors that affect the probability of a cross-party judicial nomination occurring, in order to better understand the goals that presidents are seeking to advance through these unusual actions. Looking at nominations to United States federal circuit courts and district courts between 1977 through 2004, the study finds that, controlling for a number of relevant factors, a greater number of opposition senators from a state and a higher level of electoral competition between the Republican and Democratic parties in a state increase the probability that a president will name someone from outside of his party from that state to a federal court vacancy. The findings support the hypothesis that presidents make cross-party judicial nominations to further their partisan electoral objectives, and as a response to institutional pressure from opposition senators through the use of Senate rules.

West Virginia Oil and Gas Update

This Article summarizes and discusses important cases and legislation, issued or enacted between September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2012, pertaining to the law of oil and gas in West Virginia. The Article is divided into two parts. Part One discusses the Natural Gas Horizontal Well Control Act, which was enacted by the West Virginia Legislature on December 14, 2011. Part Two discusses developments in West Virginia's case law regarding oil and gas. In this Part, the Authors will discuss and analyze major decisions issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, as well as decisions by the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.

West Virginia

This Article summarizes and discusses important cases, legislation, and regulations issued or enacted pertaining to the oil and gas jurisprudence of West Virginia between September 1, 2010, and August 31, 2011. The Authors acknowledge that the term "important" is subjec- tive; nevertheless, they endeavor to discuss the most germane cases and regulations affecting the oil and gas industry. This Article is divided into two parts. Part One discusses a very important regulation promulgated by the Office of Oil and Gas, a division of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, regarding water use by the oil and gas industry when drilling horizontal wells. Noticeably absent from this Part is any discussion of major legislation affecting the oil and gas industry. During the requisite period, no significant legislation was enacted, which the Authors subjectively deemed worthy of discussion. Nevertheless, the legislature introduced numerous bills, which if enacted, would have substantially impacted the oil and gas industry. Part Two of this Article discusses developments in West Virginia's case law regarding oil and gas. In this Part, the Authors will discuss and analyze major decisions issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ("Supreme Court of Appeals"), one important case litigated in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, and the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.

Reestablishing Balance: Twombly-Iqbal and Affirmative Defenses

The majority of United States district courts considering the question of whether Bell Atlantic v. Twombly applies to affirmative defenses have applied the standard. However, a minority of United States district courts have declined to apply the Twombly-Iqbal standard to affirmative defenses. The courts’ divergent opinions reflect differing interpretations of the Federal Rules and of the scope of the Twombly decision, as well as differing notions of equity and fairness. This paper argues that the courts should apply the Twombly standard to affirmative defenses. Through consideration of the Federal Rules, as well as the holding and public policy considerations of Twombly itself, this paper shows why this conclusion is consistent with the text and intention of the Federal Rules. Furthermore, it emphasizes that applying the Twombly standard to affirmative defenses will result in the federal courts reestablishing a balanced pleading regime that adopts a notion of fairness that considers both plaintiffs and defendants.

The Great Writ Diminished

In 2007, an empirical study of 2,384 randomly-selected habeas corpus petitions filed in United States District Courts by state prisoners in non-capital cases found that district courts granted relief in only seven. This amounts to one grant out of every 284 petitions, or a grant rate of approximately 0.35 percent. The author, himself a district judge, has granted habeas relief in 12 cases out of approximately 300, resulting in a grant rate that is much higher than the rate found by the empirical study. Thus, if the author’s experience is any indication, on average district courts are not granting habeas petitions as often as they should be. If this is so, the Great Writ has been diminished. This article seeks to stimulate a discussion about the current state of habeas corpus. Relying on his own experience with habeas petitions, the author explains why habeas is an important component of our justice system and details the cost of a diminished writ. The article concludes by offering suggestions for making habeas corpus a more potent tool for protecting the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.

Civil Case Processing in the Federal District Courts: A Twenty-First Century Analysis

This is an investigation into civil case processing in the United States District Courts. It broadly addresses two main issues: (1) the variation in the techniques, steps, and procedures that different judges and attorneys use to manage their civil cases, despite the existence of an (at least facially) uniform set of civil rules; and (2) the relationship between those techniques, steps, and procedures, and the amount of time it takes for cases to proceed from filing to disposition. Our objective is to explain how judges, attorneys and parties contribute to the overall length of a case through the procedures they adopt, tactics they use, and schedules to which they adhere. Based on review of the dockets of nearly 7700 closed civil cases in eight federal district courts, the study examines statistical correlations between the overall time to disposition of a case and the presence and timing of typical events in the course of litigation (such as a Rule 16 conference, discovery disputes, and motion practice). It also sets out descriptive statistics concerning the use of scheduling conferences, discovery and dispositive motions, and extensions of time. The study concludes with a discussion of non-quantitative factors that may affect case processing, including local legal culture, public reporting of caseflow management data, and judicial leadership.

Comparing the Decision Making of Specialized Courts and General Courts: An Exploration of Tax Decisions

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a unique federal agency because it is subject to the jurisdiction of different trial courts, the two most important of which are the United States Tax Court, a specialized court of limited jurisdiction, and the United States District Court, a court of general jurisdiction. This article offers an exploratory comparison of the tax-case decision-making process of the United States Tax Court and the United States District Courts. Using data from 1996 and 1997, the article examines the differences in decision making of these courts, specifically focusing on expertise and ideology. The United States Tax Court uses its expertise and lack of realistic structural or hierarchical constraints to decide the cases in a far more ideological manner than does the district court; this is consistent with the complexity and political nature of tax assessment and tax collection.

Presidential Success Through Appointments to the United States District Courts

While many of the decisions of federal district court judges involve the routine application of settled legal rules, a significant minority of decisions present judges with the opportunity for judicial policymaking. A considerable body of literature suggests that when faced with policymaking opportunities, judges' policy preferences exert a significant impact on the nature of those decisions. The present study explores the extent to which the preferences of appointing presidents are manifested in the policy-relevant decisions of district court judges. In particular, we seek to determine the success of presidents in selecting district court judges compared to recent findings on the success of presidents in selecting justices for the Supreme Court.

The Influence of Presidential Versus Home State Senatorial Preferences on the Policy Output of Judges on the United States District Courts

While many of the decisions of federal district court judges involve the routine application of settled legal rules, a significant minority of their decisions present the judges with the opportunity to engage in judicial policy making. A considerable body of literature suggests that when faced with policy-making opportunities, the policy preferences of the judges exert a significant impact on the nature of those decisions. The present study explores the question of whose preferences are manifested in the policy-relevant decisions of the district court judges. In particular, we seek to determine the relative impact of the preferences of the major elites involved in the selection of federal district judges: the appointing president, home state senators of the president's party, and home state elites outside the Senate who are consulted when a president makes an appointment from a state whose Senate delegation is in the hands of the opposition party.The analysis is based on all published decisions of the district courts in civil liberties, economic and labor, and criminal procedure cases decided between 1961 and 1995. We find that contrary to the expectations derived from the existing literature on district judge appointments, the political preferences of the appointing presidents are most closely related to the policy relevant decisions of the judges.