If judges are seen just like any other social adversary trying to fight others over an issue, then the public might be less likely to understand their true work as arbitrators and problem-solvers.
My traditional joy about injunctive relief may be facing a very practical challenge.
The Legal Service Corporation’s most recent benchmark study shows less than 8% of low-income legal needs are met.
I think Emperor Selassie of Ethiopia would agree that I had to do it.
In 2025, there is spirited discussion on all sides about whether we are undergoing a “constitutional crisis,” comparable to past historical examples.
Here’s a transcript from a monthly meeting.
It announced that Marion County courts would be closed for three weeks because of the growing Covid-19 pandemic. I gathered my staff, and we reviewed the court calendar for the next three weeks. I picked out two or three cases that could not be delayed, and we planned how to do those hearings. I had never heard of Zoom.
There is a cost to our rule of law when independent good-faith jurists are subject to vehement and vitriolic criticism of their professional judgment.
Most of us, lawyers and judges alike, were struck by the recent case in which a judge resigned after facing disciplinary action for, well, what we all are doing: multitasking on the job.
These days, we are hearing regularly about gag orders, contempt of court and other measures regarding a certain former president. There is a fine line between criticizing a court and insulting a judge — and the current examples may become important.
The year 2023 marks the 36th time the National Center for State Courts has published its annual “Trends in State Courts” report.
The unique tale of Section 1983 is an intriguing history of jurisprudence, social issues and federalism. The balance between central government power and individual rights has often been the rationale of applying Section 1983 or not.
Below is a conversation with Judge ChatBot, an artificial intelligence jurist currently working on his/her/its own.
“Truth” in courts of law is whatever the factfinder decides. This has often bothered me, of course, but has not stopped me from doing it for over 25 years.
The following is an interview with Justice Solomon Sabia, the only reportedly totally independent judge in the Western Hemisphere.
There was a time, not so long ago, when judges were “potted plants.” The judicial role was widely reserved, somewhat withdrawn, apart from public statement or positions, and any work to change the legal system was considered improper. Changing standards and challenging times seem to have changed all that.
As COVID-19 numbers descend, we are left with a plethora of mixed feelings. Many are overwhelmed with joy and giddiness. Some are still numb and can’t feel anything — yet. And others are trying to make sense of the past two years and the lasting realities that lay ahead. Our courts and judges fit into the latter category.
What do Saint Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers, and Indiana’s commercial courts have in common? They both made history by the effective streamlining of business law cases.
Last year, the National Judicial College surveyed judges regarding their recommended books. Some were expected, but others were surprising.
Everyone is now familiar with the ongoing effects of COVID-19 upon how the world is working, and some possible future scenarios both in the legal profession and beyond. The question for judges at every level is, “Do we ever need in-person proceedings?”