Professor Michael E. Solimine presented a paper, Direct Democracy and Judicial Review: A Reappraisal, at a symposium on election law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. The symposium papers will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Kentucky Law Journal.
Professor Solimine made a presentation on class actions at the UC Law Downtown Teach-In on April 29, 2016.
Professor Solimine made a presentation on “Recent Developments in Settlement of Class Actions,” to the Civil Justice Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council at its annual meeting in Indianapolis in July.
In June, 2016, Professor Solimine was a guest blogger on “Partisan Balance in Three-Judge District Courts under BCRA” for the Election Law Blog, www.electionlawblog.org.
Professor Solimine presented a paper, “Taming the Amicus Machine,” as part of the College of Law’s Summer Scholarship Series.
Professor Solimine, with Professor Bryant, has been invited to present on Citizens United to the Indian Hill Episcopal-Presbyterian Church’s Adult Enrichment program on September 11, 2016.
Several of Professor Solimine’s books and articles were cited:
Voting Rights and Election Law (2010) (with Michael Dimino & Bradley Smith), in Eugene D. Mazo, The Maturing of Election Law, in Election Law Stories (J. Douglas & E. Mazo, eds. 2016).
Respecting State Courts: The Inevitability of Judicial Federalism (1999) (with James Walker), in Scott Dodson, The Gravitational Force of Federal Law, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 703 (2016).
Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. Legal Stud. 271 (1998) (with William Landes & Lawrence Lessig), in Stewart Manley,Referencing Patterns at the International Criminal Court, 27 Eur. J. Int’l L. 191 (2016); and Hillary Greene & D. Daniel Sokol, Judicial Treatment of the Antitrust Treatise, 100 Iowa L. Rev. 2039 (2015).
State Amici, Collective Action, and the Development of Federalism Doctrine, 46 Ga. L. Rev. 355 (2012), in Margaret H. Lemos, Privatizing Public Litigation, 104 Geo. L.J. 515 (2016).
Diluting Justice on Appeal? An Examination of the Use of District Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeals, 28 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. 351 (1995)(with Richard Saphire), in Mark A. Lemley & Shawn P. Miller, If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em? How Sitting by Designation Affects Judicial Behavior, 94 Tex. L. Rev. 451 (2016).
Shoring Up Article III: Legislative Court Doctrine in the Post-CFTC v. Schor Era, 68 B.U. L. Rev. 85 (1988) (with Richard Saphire), in Julian G. Ku, Why Ratification of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea May Violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution, 25 Minn. J. Int’l L. 1 (2016); Rhett B. Larson, Adapting Human Rights, 26 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 1 (2015); Andrew Chesley, Note, The Scope of the United States Judge Authority After Stern v. Marshall, 116 Colum. L. Rev. 757 (2016); and Hyungjoo Han, Comment, Redefining Non-Article III Adjudicatory Authority Post Stern v. Marshall, 18 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 725 (2015).
Constitutional Litigation in Federal and State Courts: An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Parity, 10 Hastings Const. L. Q. 213 (1983)(with James Walker), in Scott Dodson, The Gravitational Force of Federal Law, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 703 (2016).
The Solicitor General Unbound: Amicus Curiae Activism and Deference in the Supreme Court, 45 Ariz. St. L. J. 1183 (2013), in Kristen E. Eichensehr, Foreign Sovereigns as Friends of the Court, 102 Va. L. Rev. 289 (2016).
Formalism, Pragmatism, and the Conservative Critique of the Eleventh Amendment, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 1463 (2003), in Fred Smith, Local Sovereign Immunity, 116 Colum. L. Rev. 409 (2016).
Revitalizing Interlocutory Appeals in the Federal Courts, 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1165 (1990), in Fred Smith, Local Sovereign Immunity, 116 Colum. L. Rev. 409 (2016).
The Next Word: Congressional Response to Supreme Court Statutory Decisions, 65 Temp. L. Rev. 425 (1992)(with James Walker), in Wesley Sze, Note, Did Brand X Mark the Spot? Brand X and the Scope of Agency Overrides of Judicial Decisions, 68 Stan. L. Rev. 235 (2016).
Deciding to Decide: Class action Certification and Interlocutory Review by the United States Courts of Appeal under Rule 23(f), 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1531 (2000)(with Christine Oliver Hines), in Tanya Pierce, Improving Predictability and Consistency in Class Action Tolling, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 339 (2016).
Judicial Reputation: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges, 27 J. Legal Stud. 271 (1998)(with William Landes & Lawrence Lessig), in William Domnarski, Richard Posner (Oxford University Press 2016); R. Robert Owens, Judicial Decision Making as Knowledge Work, 41 Law & Soc. Inquiry 502 (2016); and Rachael K. Hinkle,Strategic Anticipation of En Banc Review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 50 Law & Soc’y Rev. 383 (2016).
The Three-Judge District Court in Voting Rights Litigation, 30 U. Mich. J. Law Ref. 79 (1996), in Samuel Issacharoff, et al., The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process (Foundation Press 5th ed. 2016); and Richard L. Hasen, Election Law’s Path in the Roberts Courts’ First Decade: A Sharp Right Turn but with Speed Bumps and Surprising Twists, 68 Stan. L. Rev. 1597 (2016).
The Fall and Rise of Specialized Federal Constitutional Courts, 17 U. Pa. J. Con. L. 115 (2014), in Michael Goodman, What’s So Special About Patent Law?, 26 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. J. 797 (2016); and Richard H. Fallon, Jr., et al., Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 2016 Supplement.
Forum Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure, 25 Cornell Int’l L.J. 51 (1992), in Verity Winship, Shareholder Litigation by Contract, 96 B.U. L. Rev. 485 (2016), and Joel Pruett, Comment, Nothing Personal (or Subject Matter) About It: Jurisdictional Risk as an Impetus for Non-Tribal Opt-Outs from Tribal Economics, and the Need for Administrative Response, 40 Am. Indian L. Rev. 131 (2015-16).
Congress, Ex parte Young, and the Fate of the Three-Judge District Court, 70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 101 (2008), in Richard L. Hasen, Election Law’s Path in the Roberts Courts’ First Decade: A Sharp Right Turn but with Speed Bumps and Surprising Twists, 68 Stan. L. Rev. 1597 (2016).
Rethinking Feminist Judging, 70 Ind. L.J. 891 (1995)(with Susan Wheatley), in Ronen Perry, et al., “He Said, She Said”: With a Twist, 69 SMU L. Rev. 3 (2016); and L. Wayne Scott, The Dilemma of Interpreting Rules of Civil Procedure: A Proposal for Elastic Formalism, 47 St. Mary’s L.J. 569 (2016).
The Supreme Court and the DIG: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1421 (with Rafael Gely), in William C. Kidder, How Workable are Class-Based and Race-Neutral Alternatives at Leading American Universities?, 64 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 100 (2016).
The Supreme Court and the Sophisticated Use of DIGs, 18 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 155 (2010)(with Rafael Gely), in Justin R. Pidot, Tie Votes and the 2016 Supreme Court Vacancy, 101 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes 107 (2016).
Removal, Remands, and Reforming Federal Appellate Review, 58 Mo. L. Rev. 287 (1993), in William M. Janssen, Remands by Deception, 81 Mo. L. Rev. 75 (2016).
State Court Protection of Federal Constitutional Rights, 12 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 127 (1989)(with James Walker), in Kristen Eckroad, Comment, An Interpretive Approach: A Call for State Statutory Reform Governing Fetal Tissue Donation, 16 U. Md. L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class 92 (2016).