The Federal Circuit’s frequent use of Rule 36 for one-word affirmances starkly contrasts with the norm in most other circuits, raising concerns about sufficient judicial reasoning.
Appellate courts require lower courts to provide well-founded written explanations to aid in understanding the rationale behind judicial decisions, ensuring accountability.
The Supreme Court's oversight is required to address the disparities in Rule 36 applications across circuits, particularly with the Federal and Fifth Circuits’ practices.
Inherent issues arise when district courts fail to justify their decisions adequately, as seen in the Fourth Circuit's vacate of summary judgment in Campbell v. Hewitt.
Collection
[
|
...
]