2011-12 Brennan Center Jorde Symposium

October 25, 2011

Part I: October 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Berkeley Law School, University of California Berkeley

Judge Diane P. Wood is a Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Read an analysis of Judge Wood's lecture.

She attended the University of Texas at Austin, earning her B.A. in 1971 (highest honors), and her J.D. in 1975 (Order of the Coif). After graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Irving L. Goldberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1975-76), and for Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court (1976-77). She then spent a brief period at the Office of the Legal Adviser in the U.S. Department of State. She began her career as a legal academic at Georgetown University Law Center.

Judge Wood served as a full-time professor at the University of Chicago Law School (1981-95) and as Associate Dean from 1989 through 1992. In 1990, she was named to the Harold J. and Marion F. Green Professorship in International Legal Studies, becoming the first woman to hold a named chair at the school. From 1993 until she was appointed to the Seventh Circuit in 1995, she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

When to Hold, When to Fold, and When to Reshuffle:

The Art of Decision Making on a Multi-member Court

There is an enduring truth that any judge on a multi-member court must face: one cannot act alone. On the federal courts of appeals, at least two members of an ordinary panel must agree on an outcome. On the Supreme Court, it is necessary for five or more justices to find at least minimal common ground before the case can be resolved. If the case is at all challenging, every judge must consider how to approach his or her colleagues. Does one insist on a particular outcome, writing a dissent or a concurrence in the judgment if necessary? Does one acquiesce in a position that seems dubious, but perhaps not harmful in the long run (for example, because the rule of law seems acceptable even if the application of that rule to the facts is questionable)? Or is it possible—and desirable—to shave the question down to its essence and craft a compromise position that moves the law in the direction the judge believes to be correct? Justice Brennan used all three techniques creatively during his many years on the Court. The lecture will consider several broad topical areas that illustrate how and when Justice Brennan called upon each approach, and why an effective judge needs to make use of all three.

Commentators on Judge Wood’s lecture will be Judge Marsha Berzon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Berkeley Law Professor Kevin Quinn.

Part II: April 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm

New York University School of Law - Vanderbilt Hall: Greenberg Lounge

When to Hold, When to Fold, and When to Reshuffle:

The Art of Decision Making on a Multi-member Court

There is an enduring truth that any judge on a multi-member court must face: one cannot act alone. On the federal courts of appeals, at least two members of an ordinary panel must agree on an outcome. On the Supreme Court, it is necessary for five or more justices to find at least minimal common ground before the case can be resolved. If the case is at all challenging, every judge must consider how to approach his or her colleagues. Does one insist on a particular outcome, writing a dissent or a concurrence in the judgment if necessary? Does one acquiesce in a position that seems dubious, but perhaps not harmful in the long run (for example, because the rule of law seems acceptable even if the application of that rule to the facts is questionable)? Or is it possible—and desirable—to shave the question down to its essence and craft a compromise position that moves the law in the direction the judge believes to be correct? Justice Brennan used all three techniques creatively during his many years on the Court. The lecture will consider several broad topical areas that illustrate how and when Justice Brennan called upon each approach, and why an effective judge needs to make use of all three.

Commentators:

Barry Friedman, the Vice Dean and Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He has taught, written and litigated about the Constitution for twenty-five years.

Judge Harry Edwards, Professor at New York University School of Law, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before joining the bench, Judge Edwards was a tenured Professor of Law at the University of Michigan (1970-75 and 1977-80) and at Harvard Law School (1975-77). He practiced law in Chicago with Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson from 1965 to 1970.

About the Jorde Symposium:

The Brennan Center Jorde Symposium, an annual event, was created in 1996 to sponsor top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues that were central to the legacy of William J. Brennan, Jr.

The Brennan Center named the Symposium in honor of its major benefactor Thomas M. Jorde, former Brennan clerk and Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall. A unique feature of the Symposium is that, each year, the honored lecturer presents the same lecture at two different sites, one in the fall, and another in the spring, with a different pair of prominent commentators at each site. The fall lecture is typically held at the University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall, where Tom Jorde taught for many years. The spring lecture is at a different law school every year. Both lectures and the four commentaries are published annually in the California Law Review.

Read an analysis of Judge Wood's lecture at Berkeley Law School.

Part I of the 2010-2011 Jorde Symposium

The 2009-2010 Jorde Symposium

The 2008-2009 Jorde Symposium