Works published by Center staff and affiliates:
- “Article III and the Political-Question Doctrine,” 116 Northwestern University Law Review (forthcoming 2021)
- “Cooperativism in the American Adversarial Tradition,” Civil Justice Quarterly (forthcoming 2021-2022).
- “Personal Jurisdiction, Comparativism, and Ford,” 51 Stetson Law Review (forthcoming 2021).
- “Videoconferencing and Procedural Doctrine,” Southwestern Law Review (forthcoming 2021).
- “Texas v. Pennsylvania and the Political-Question Doctrine,” 2021 University of Illinois Law Review Online 141.
Current works in progress include:
- An empirical study of the reasons why in-state plaintiffs invoke diversity jurisdiction in federal court. Evidence suggests that these kinds of cases are a healthy percentage–25%-50%–of the total diversity caseload in federal courts. Yet these are exactly the kinds of cases that run contrary to the out-of-state bias rationale of diversity jurisdiction. What’s going on? And might a better understanding of what’s going on help Congress consider reforms to Sec. 1332 to better align diversity jurisdiction with its rationale and with the interests of the federal courts? This survey study aims to shed light on the answers to those questions.
- A study of the rulemaking process for the Supreme Court Rules. The literature on the Supreme Court Rules, and the rulemaking process behind them, is practically nonexistent. Part of the reason is that the rulemaking process for the Supreme Court Rules is a black box–the Court promulgates its rules with neither oversight nor transparency. This study, relying on interviews with current and former government officials, opens that black box to reveal the history of the rulemaking process for the Supreme Court Rules from the 1980s to the present. That process, as contrasted with the open and participatory rulemaking process for the lower-court rules, is highly secretive and insular. The article analyzes the justifications of such an approach and finds none persuasive. The article then turns to modest proposals for reform that will benefit the rulemaking process at marginal cost.
