Precedent and Justice

Precedent is the cornerstone of common law method. It is the core mechanism by which the common law reaches just outcomes. Through creation and application of precedent, common law seeks to produce justice. The appellate courts\u27 practice of issuing unpublished, non-precedential opinions has generated considerable discussion about the value of precedent, but that debate has centered on pragmatic and formalistic values. This essay argues that the practice of issuing non-precedential opinions does more than offend constitutional dictates and present pragmatic problems to the appellate system; abandoning precedent undermines justice itself. Issuance of the vast majority of decisions as nonprecedential tears the justice-seeking mechanism of precedent from the heart of our common law system

Post-Crisis Reconsideration of Federal Court Reform

While the language of crisis has diminished, the caseload volume problem continues to bedevil the federal appellate courts, and the altered process adopted describe, there are just too many cases to handle with current resources using the time-honored appellate process; there is no simple solution. The path of least resistance—sacrificing appellate standards—has proven workable and effective, and the more significant steps such as reducing appeals or increasing judicial resources have gone unadopted. Various studies and proposals of the federal court system have suggested other methods that could be used to address the problem, and these methods should be seriously considered by the federal judiciary and Congress to improve access, fairness, and accountability. If need be, a new federal court study should be undertaken to help select some of these methods or generate new twentyfirst century methods of addressing the issue. Perhaps a sober second look, freed from the debate over the existence of a crisis, will result in reform that restores some of the traditional appellate process while still managing present, and anticipated future, caseload volume