Sealed Cases in Federal Courts
ثبت نشده
چکیده
This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center's statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and development for the improvement of judicial administration. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
منابع مشابه
Rapidly Evolving Judicial Landscape, and the Sec’s Response to Critics
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act bestowed upon the Securities and Exchange Commission the right to pursue an enforcement action against any person either in federal court or through an administrative proceeding. Since 2012, the SEC has chosen to pursue an unprecedented percentage of its enforcement actions administratively, and it has prevailed in those administrati...
متن کاملThe Future of Teague Retroactivity, or â•œRedressability,â•š after Danforth v. Minnesota: Why Lower Courts Should Give Retroactive Effect to New Constitutional Rules of Criminal Procedure in Postconviction Proceedings
Although the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane generally prohibits the application of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure in federal habeas review of state-court judgments, the Court’s 2008 decision in Danforth v. Minnesota frees state courts from Teague’s strictures. Danforth explicitly permits state courts to fashion their own rules governing the retroactive applicati...
متن کاملThe hostility of the burger court to mental health law reform litigation.
In recent years, many courts (and especially the federal courts) have become the focus for the pursuit of goals of major institutional reform in cases brought by advocates for prisoners, mental patients, students, and others.2 These advocates turned to the courts because the legislative and executive branches were unwilling to devote larger shares of scarce resources to improving conditions at ...
متن کاملInconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony: disorder in the courts.
Several recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have strengthened the ability of federal courts to consider medical testimony regarding injuries associated with exposure to toxic substances. Judges are expected to examine the basis of all expert testimony before it is introduced at trial to ensure that it meets the same standards of intellectual rigor that professionals use outside the courtro...
متن کاملCaseload Burdens and Jurisdictional Limitations: Some Observations from the History of the Federal Courts
Judge Newman has asked that we talk not about him today but about the federal courts. Naturally, I will honor his request, but I must also say that I can think of no better place to start such a discussion than with the exceptionally valuable contributions he has made over the past two decades in examining the institutional problems that confront the federal courts and in proposing thoughtful a...
متن کامل