Cornell Law Review Volume 96 Issue 6

Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justices, unlike the President or members of Congress, perform their work with relatively little staffing. Each Justice processes the docket, hears cases, and writes opinions with the assistance of only their law clerks. The relationship between Justices and their clerks is of intense interest to legal scholars and the public, but it remains largely unknown. This Article […]

Read More :: View PDF

The Use of Legal Scholarship by the Federal Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Study

Chief Justice John Roberts recently explained that he does not pay much attention to law review articles, reportedly stating that they are not particularly helpful for practitioners and judges. Chief Justice Roberts’s criticism echoes that made by other judges, some of whom, like Judge Harry Edwards, have been much more strident in the contention that legal scholarship is largely […]

Read More :: View PDF

Against Flexibility

Contemporary legal thinking is in the thrall of a cult of flexibility. We obsess about avoiding decisions without all possible relevant information while ignoring the costs of postponing decisions until that information becomes available. We valorize procrastination and condemn investments of decisional resources in early decisions. We should understand public and private law as a productive activity converting information, […]

Read More :: View PDF

Assessing Environmental Damages After Oil Spill Disasters: How Courts Should Construe the Rebuttable Presumption Under the Oil Pollution Act

To read the complete Note, click “VIEW PDF” below. 

Read More :: View PDF

A Third Way: The Presidential Nonsigning Statement

To read the complete Note, click “VIEW PDF” below. 

Read More :: View PDF