Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2019-02-03 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3099771
Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine
{"title":"Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy","authors":"Joshua A. Douglas, Michael E. Solimine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3099771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As recent partisan gerrymandering cases have shown, three-judge district courts play a unique and important role in how the federal judiciary considers significant election law disputes. Yet two somewhat quirky procedural questions involving these courts remain unresolved: first, is a Supreme Court ruling to summarily affirm a three-judge district court’s decision precedential on all future courts? That is, why should a one-line order from the Supreme Court, without explanation, formally bind all future courts on the issue, especially when it is unclear what aspect of the lower court’s decision was correct? Second, must a three-judge district court follow, as mandatory authority, circuit precedent in the circuit in which it sits, even though an appeal from the ruling of a three-judge district court will skip the court of appeals and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court? \n \nThis Article tackles these problems and provides clear-cut answers, which will ultimately improve judicial decision making for some of the most important cases that the federal judiciary hears given their effect on democracy. On the first question, we find that summary decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are entitled to zero or very little precedential value, and therefore that the Justices need not feel obliged to hear these cases in full if they want the issue to percolate in the lower courts first. Yet there should be a presumption in favor of the Court providing legal guidance on the issue, meaning that most of the time it should set the case for oral argument and provide a full written opinion. On the second question, we conclude that circuit precedent is not formally binding on three-judge district courts, although of course in many cases it will be highly persuasive. \n \nProcedural questions stemming from three-judge district courts impact their substantive rulings, which mostly involve redistricting and campaign finance. Resolving these two questions on the procedures involving three-judge district courts will help to ensure that these special courts operate as Congress intended, ultimately improving our electoral system.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"120 1","pages":"413"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3099771","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

As recent partisan gerrymandering cases have shown, three-judge district courts play a unique and important role in how the federal judiciary considers significant election law disputes. Yet two somewhat quirky procedural questions involving these courts remain unresolved: first, is a Supreme Court ruling to summarily affirm a three-judge district court’s decision precedential on all future courts? That is, why should a one-line order from the Supreme Court, without explanation, formally bind all future courts on the issue, especially when it is unclear what aspect of the lower court’s decision was correct? Second, must a three-judge district court follow, as mandatory authority, circuit precedent in the circuit in which it sits, even though an appeal from the ruling of a three-judge district court will skip the court of appeals and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court? This Article tackles these problems and provides clear-cut answers, which will ultimately improve judicial decision making for some of the most important cases that the federal judiciary hears given their effect on democracy. On the first question, we find that summary decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are entitled to zero or very little precedential value, and therefore that the Justices need not feel obliged to hear these cases in full if they want the issue to percolate in the lower courts first. Yet there should be a presumption in favor of the Court providing legal guidance on the issue, meaning that most of the time it should set the case for oral argument and provide a full written opinion. On the second question, we conclude that circuit precedent is not formally binding on three-judge district courts, although of course in many cases it will be highly persuasive. Procedural questions stemming from three-judge district courts impact their substantive rulings, which mostly involve redistricting and campaign finance. Resolving these two questions on the procedures involving three-judge district courts will help to ensure that these special courts operate as Congress intended, ultimately improving our electoral system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
判例、三法官地区法院和民主法律
正如最近的党派不公正划分选区案件所显示的那样,在联邦司法机构如何考虑重大选举法纠纷方面,由三名法官组成的地区法院发挥着独特而重要的作用。然而,涉及这些法院的两个有点古怪的程序问题仍未得到解决:第一,最高法院草率地确认由三名法官组成的地区法院的裁决,是否对未来所有法院都具有先例意义?也就是说,为什么最高法院的一句话命令,没有任何解释,就能正式约束所有未来的法院在这个问题上的裁决,尤其是在下级法院判决的哪个方面是正确的尚不清楚的情况下?第二,即使对由三名法官组成的地区法院的裁决提出的上诉将跳过上诉法院直接上诉到美国最高法院,作为强制性权力机构,一个由三名法官组成的地区法院是否必须遵循其所在巡回法院的巡回判例?本文讨论了这些问题并提供了明确的答案,这将最终改善联邦司法机构审理的一些最重要案件的司法决策,因为它们对民主产生了影响。关于第一个问题,我们发现,美国最高法院的简易裁决具有零或很少的先例价值,因此,如果法官们希望这个问题首先渗透到下级法院,他们就不必感到有义务全面审理这些案件。然而,应该有一个有利于法院在这个问题上提供法律指导的推定,这意味着它应该在大多数情况下为口头辩论提出案件,并提供一份完整的书面意见。关于第二个问题,我们的结论是,巡回判例对由三名法官组成的地区法院没有正式约束力,尽管在许多情况下,它将具有很强的说服力。由三名法官组成的地区法院的程序问题会影响其实质性裁决,这些裁决主要涉及重新划分选区和竞选资金。解决这两个涉及三名法官的地区法院的程序问题,将有助于确保这些特别法院按照国会的意愿运作,最终改善我们的选举制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Georgetown Law Journal is headquartered at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. and has since its inception published more than 500 issues, as well as the widely-used Annual Review of Criminal Procedure (ARCP). The Journal is currently, and always has been, run by law students.
期刊最新文献
Codifying Constitutional Norms Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy Privatizing Criminal Procedure The Decline of the Virginia (and American) Death Penalty Law in the Anthropocene Epoch
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1