January 23, 2018
"The 'New' District Court Activism in Criminal Justice Reform"
The title of this post is the title of this interesting new paper authored by Jessica Roth now available via SSRN. Here is the paper's abstract:
Historically, the debate over the judicial role has centered on the constitutional and administrative law decisions of the United States Supreme Court, with an occasional glance at the Federal Courts of Appeals. It has, moreover, been concerned solely with the “in-court” behavior of Article III appellate judges as they carry out their power and duty “to say what the law is” in the context of resolving “cases and controversies.” This Article seeks to deepen the discussion of the appropriate role of Article III judges by broadening it to trial, as well as appellate, judges; and by distinguishing between an Article III judge’s “decisional” activities on the one hand, and the judge’s “hortatory” and other activities on the other.
To that end, the Article focuses on a cohort of deeply respected federal district judges — many, although not all, experienced Clinton appointees in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York — who, over the last decade, have challenged conventional norms of judicial behavior to urge reform of fundamental aspects of the federal criminal justice system. These “new” judicial activists have made their case for reform in the pages of their judicial opinions, often in dicta; in articles and speeches; and through advocacy within and beyond the judicial branch. This Article summarizes this activity, places it in historical context, and assesses its value as well as its risks.
January 23, 2018 at 11:05 AM | Permalink
Before I start reading this article, is any activity of these activist judges on the side of greater crime victim protection? Is all the activism on the side of coddling criminals? There is nothing new to read if the latter is the case.
Posted by: David Behar | Jan 23, 2018 5:07:37 PM