Judging in Chambers: The Powers of a Single Justice of the Supreme Court
University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 76, 2008
2008
- 4,626Usage
- 1Captures
- 4Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
The “Continue Withholding” Directive in Trump v. United States
Late last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, in which the Court will decide whether the former president has immunity
Paper Description
A relatively obscure power of individual federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, is the power to grant interim relief to a litigant pending appellate review of a lower court's judgment or order. Individual Justices routinely use this power, exercising virtually unfettered discretion to determine the interim outcome of cases during the months and years it can take for the appellate process to conclude. In some cases, an individual Justice has the power to decide if a case will be kept in a posture in which appellate review is even possible. This Article explores this power, largely focusing on the Supreme Court level, and offers a critical assessment of its use as a matter of both constitutional theory and sound judicial policy. Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in courts, not judges, and this Article traces this historical practice of judges ruling from chambers, rather than from the bench, to argue that the powers of a single judge are limited to emergency situations and quasi-administrative tasks. The Article then argues that the current procedures regarding applications for interim relief should be altered so that the decisions are generally made by multi-member courts rather than individual judges or Justices.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know