Expert Analysis

• 8th Circ. Redistricting Ruling Imperils The Voting Rights Act

  

  The Eighth Circuit’s recent ruling in Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, holding that private plaintiffs don't have standing to sue in redistricting cases, creates a circuit split, and, if upheld, would nearly destroy the Voting Rights Act, says William Brewer at Brewer Storefront.

• Justices May Clarify Expert Witness Confrontation Confusion

  

  After oral arguments in Smith v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to hold that expert witness opinions that rely on out-of-court testimonial statements for their factual basis are unconstitutional, thus resolving some of the complications created by the court’s confrontation clause jurisprudence, says Richard Friedman at the University of Michigan Law School.

• Immigration Detention Should Offer Universal Legal Counsel

  

  Given the large backlog of immigration court cases and the more than 70% of people in immigration detention without counsel in 2023, the system should establish a universal right to federally funded representation for anyone facing deportation, similar to the public defender model, say Laura Lunn and Shaleen Morales at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.

• UX Research And Design Is Crucial For Justice Technologies

  

  It’s essential that new access-to-justice digital tools incorporate user experience research and design methodologies to enhance access and accessibility, improve efficiency in processes and service delivery, and reduce risk, says Sarah Mauet at Innovation for Justice.

• Higher Juror Compensation Trend Is Good For Justice System

  

  This year a number of states increased daily juror compensation rates after decades of stagnation — a positive development that facilitates more representative juries, aids decision making and boosts public confidence in the legal system, says Cary Silverman at Shook Hardy.

• The Pop Culture Docket: Judge D'Emic On Moby Grape

  

  The 1968 Moby Grape song "Murder in My Heart for the Judge" tells the tale of a fictional defendant treated with scorn by the judge, illustrating how much the legal system has evolved in the past 50 years, largely due to problem-solving courts and the principles of procedural justice, says Kings County Supreme Court Administrative Judge Matthew D'Emic.

• 6th Circ. Case Eases Path For Some Excessive Force Claims

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Fox v. Campbell, leaving in place the Sixth Circuit’s holding that excessive force claims based on police shootings can be founded on the Fourth Amendment even if no one is hit by gunfire — which will be helpful for some civil rights litigants, says Sharon Fairley at the University of Chicago Law School.

• In Culley, Justices Unlikely To Set New Forfeiture Standards

  

  As the U.S. Supreme Court considers Culley v. Marshall — a case with the potential to reshape civil asset forfeiture practices — the justices' recent comments at oral argument suggest that, while some of them may be concerned about civil forfeiture abuse, they are unlikely to significantly change the status quo, say attorneys at Jackson Walker.

• The Meaning Of 'Bail' Has Strayed Far From Its Legal Roots

  

  As the pretrial system faces increasing scrutiny nationwide, states must recognize that imposing financial bail conditions harms communities, and that pretrial release practices must be realigned with foundational American legal principles — including the idea that money-based detention violates due process, says Matt Alsdorf at the Center for Effective Public Policy.

• Learning From San Francisco's Jury Pay Pilot Program

  

  A pilot program in San Francisco shows that increasing compensation for lower-income jurors can foster more diverse juries and boost access to justice — and provides lessons for establishing similar projects in jurisdictions around the U.S., say San Francisco Treasurer José Cisneros, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and Public Defender Mano Raju.

• In Domestic Abuse Case, Justices Must Note Gun Law History

  

  In deciding whether laws prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms are unconstitutional in U.S. v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court should recognize that history is replete with relevant legal analogues restricting gun ownership, says Sarah Bennett at Sodoma Law.

• The Pop Culture Docket: Judge Espinosa On 'Lincoln Lawyer'

  

  The murder trials in Netflix’s “The Lincoln Lawyer” illustrate the stark contrast between the ethical high ground that fosters and maintains the criminal justice system's integrity, and the ethical abyss that can undermine it, with an important reminder for all legal practitioners, say Judge Adam Espinosa and Andrew Howard at the Colorado 2nd Judicial District Court.

• Civil Legal Aid Cuts Are A Threat To Justice And Prosperity

  

  The U.S. House of Representatives' budget proposal for fiscal year 2024 includes $71 million in cuts to civil legal aid, but the measure overlooks the economic benefits of access to justice and the many ways that opening the courts to more citizens can foster both basic human rights and economic growth, says David Carter at Calloquy.

• 'True Threat' Ruling May Ensnare Kids' Online Speech

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Counterman v. Colorado decision correctly held that a showing of intent is required to prosecute someone for true threats, but the amorphous standard adopted by the court risks overcriminalizing children’s use of social media and text-based communications, say Adam Pollet at Eversheds Sutherland and Suzanne La Pierre at Human Rights for Kids.

• More States Should Join Effort To Close Legal Services Gap

  

  Colorado is the most recent state to allow other types of legal providers, not just attorneys, to offer specific services in certain circumstances — and more states should rethink the century-old assumptions that shape our current regulatory rules, say Natalie Anne Knowlton and Janet Drobinske at the University of Denver.