Recent Articles and Comments in Volume 77 (2024)
By Samuel A. Thumma & Marcus W. Reinkensmeyer – In this article, the Arizona Supreme Court COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup (“Plan B Workgroup”) provides an update from its prior efforts, building on the Post-pandemic Recommendations: COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup, 75 SMU LAW REVIEW FORUM 1 (2022). This article focuses on the Plan B Workgroup’s February 2022 Recommended Remote and In-Person Hearings in the Arizona State Courts in the Post-Pandemic World and developments after those Recommendations. []
By David M. Driesen – This Essay analyzes Donald Trump’s erosion of checks and balances during his presidency and how President Trump will likely seek to complete their collapse if he regains power. Its First Part shows that congressional willingness to check presidential abuses of power declined during Trump’s presidency and will likely get much weaker in a second term. It also shows that President Trump figured out how to evade checks and balances from Congress in his first term and examines his plans to further usurp congressional powers. []
By Mitchell F. Crusto – On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a specific race-conscious “tool” in the admission decisions of public and private colleges to achieve diversity is unconstitutional. However, in his nuanced opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to renew the Court’s commitment to the anti-discrimination vision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny. Furthermore, the Court’s decision provided the possibility of an exception for its stated restriction, that is, for military service academies. Nonetheless, the Court’s ban on a race-conscious tool is expected to have a substantial, negative effect on the application and enrollment of students who are African-Americans, their pathways to graduate and professional schools, and their employment opportunities, resulting in what I coin as a “Black brain drain.” []
By Raymond H. Brescia – In the wake of the 2020 presidential election in the United States, lawyers sought to overturn the results of that election filing baseless and far-fetched claims. Courts sanctioned many of those lawyers and at least some of them have been disbarred or are in the last throes of disbarment proceedings. Yet such punishment has come nearly four years after the events that precipitated the need for such professional discipline. Are there things courts can do now, on the immediate eve of the next presidential contest, to “insurrection-proof” their courtrooms to make sure that the legal system is not used, once again, in an anti-democratic fashion that seeks to undermine the rule of law? In this Essay, I explain how courts can deploy a range of tools to try to prevent a repeat of what happened in the wake of the 2020 election. []