On Leadership for “the Every Judge”

To effectively run a courtroom, the judge needs to be in charge. Perhaps because of that, judges are classically viewed as leaders. That view, in turn, frequently places judges in leadership for various outside-of-the-courtroom endeavors, both within and outside of the court system. But the best leadership styles for these various settings can be quite different. Judicial leadership that works well in running a courtroom may fail miserably outside of the courtroom. That is true in off-the-bench efforts both inside and outside of the court system

Post-pandemic Recommendations: COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup

In this report, the COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup (Plan B Workgroup) makes recommendations about best practices and technologies that should be retained or adapted post-pandemic. The recommendations in this final Plan B Workgroup whitepaper are based on experience and feedback from Arizona’s courts addressing pandemic and post-pandemic practices. Although the original report, issued on June 2, 2021, included a May 2021 Survey of Arizona’s Courts, this updated report also includes information from a July 2021 State Bar of Arizona Survey and a September 2021 State of Arizona Public Opinion Survey addressing those practices. The workgroup’s findings and recommendations, which remain unchanged, can be summarized in five major categories: (1) Increasing Access to Justice, (2) Expanding Use of Technology, (3) Jury and Trial Management, (4) Communication Strategies and Disaster Preparedness, and (5) Health, Safety, and Security Protocols

Scaling the Lexicon Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in the Twenty-First Century

This Article examines the Court’s use of dictionaries in the first decade of the twenty-first century, building on previous research by Professor Kirchmeier and Judge Thumma regarding the Supreme Court’s history of using dictionaries. See Samuel A. Thumma & Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries, 47 Buff. L. Rev. 227 (1999); Samuel A. Thumma & Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, The Lexicon Remains a Fortress: An Update, 5 Green Bag 51 (2001). During Supreme Court Terms 2000–2001 through 2009–2010, the Justices have referenced dictionary definitions to define nearly 300 words or phrases. Yet the Court has never expressly explained the proper role and use of the dictionary in American jurisprudence. The Article studies the frequency and the approach the Justices have taken to citing dictionaries in the new century, and it considers the Court’s lack of a reasoned process for selecting or using dictionaries. Part I examines the frequency of dictionary use in the new century as compared to past use, comparing the different Justices with respect to their dictionary usage and the dictionaries most frequently cited by the Court. Part II addresses the stages of dictionary use, from the initial decision to use a dictionary to define a word to the selection of the dictionary and the choice of definitions. Part III examines some recent cases that illustrate the approaches taken in using dictionaries to define terms from various sources, including the United States Constitution, statutes, and prior cases. The Article includes three comprehensive appendices that compile information from the twenty-first century cases listing: (1) the terms defined by the Court with references to the cases; (2) the Justices who have used a dictionary in opinions (along with their frequency of use and which dictionaries are used); and (3) the dictionaries used by the Court. These appendices, when combined with the authors’ previous articles examining the Supreme Court’s dictionary use through the twentieth century, provide a comprehensive compilation of the use of dictionaries since the Court began. The Article concludes that, in the twenty-first century, the Court continues to use dictionaries at a high rate with little guidance for parties, lawyers or others regarding when to turn to dictionaries, which dictionaries to use, and how to use dictionaries. Although the authors are able to deduce several principles from the Court’s history, to date, the United States Supreme Court has issued no definitive decision squarely addressing the proper use of the dictionary. The ongoing usage of dictionaries by the United States Supreme Court and other courts continues to demonstrate the need for such guidance