White-Collar Courts
Article III courts are white-collar courts. They are, scholars have said, "special." They sit atop the judicial hierarchy, and they are the courts of the one percent. We inculcate that sense of specialness in a variety of ways: federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they are th...
Saved in:
Published in | Vanderbilt law review Vol. 76; no. 4; pp. 1155 - 1213 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Nashville
Vanderbilt University, School of Law
01.05.2023
Vanderbilt Law Review |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Article III courts are white-collar courts. They are, scholars have said, "special." They sit atop the judicial hierarchy, and they are the courts of the one percent. We inculcate that sense of specialness in a variety of ways: federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they are the subject of a (perhaps overrated) class in law school; we privilege clerkships with federal judges more than with state-court judges; and we focus more scholarly attention on federal courtsthan state courts. They are, in short, the courts of the elite--jurisdictionally, doctrinally, and socially. Perhaps the singular importance of federal courts was inevitable, but this Article explores that attitude's darker side. White-collar courts privilege certain kinds of disputes and certain classes of litigants; federal courts prefer white-collar work to blue-collar work. Such privilege, this Article argues, creates expressive and attitudinal harms: it imposes a value judgment about the work of federal courts that denigrates some, while exalting others. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 |
ISSN: | 0042-2533 1942-9886 |