{"title":"不引用规则对律师言论的先行约束","authors":"Marla Brooke Tusk","doi":"10.2307/1123835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The federal appellate courts promulgated selective publication and nocitation rules in the 1960’s as a means of alleviating the burden of an escalating caseload crisis. Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions. Although these rules have arguably succeeded in their pursuit of judicial economy, courts and commentators have suggested myriad reasons why they may be constitutionally infirm. This Note focuses on the First Amendment implications of no-citation rules. Specifically, it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney speech.","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1202"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123835","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech\",\"authors\":\"Marla Brooke Tusk\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/1123835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The federal appellate courts promulgated selective publication and nocitation rules in the 1960’s as a means of alleviating the burden of an escalating caseload crisis. Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions. Although these rules have arguably succeeded in their pursuit of judicial economy, courts and commentators have suggested myriad reasons why they may be constitutionally infirm. This Note focuses on the First Amendment implications of no-citation rules. Specifically, it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney speech.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia Law Review\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"1202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123835\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123835\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123835","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech
The federal appellate courts promulgated selective publication and nocitation rules in the 1960’s as a means of alleviating the burden of an escalating caseload crisis. Selective publication rules permit courts to designate certain opinions as “unpublished,” while no-citation rules bar litigants from citing to, and simultaneously restrict the precedential value of, those opinions. Although these rules have arguably succeeded in their pursuit of judicial economy, courts and commentators have suggested myriad reasons why they may be constitutionally infirm. This Note focuses on the First Amendment implications of no-citation rules. Specifically, it maintains that these rules—which restrict attorneys from communicating certain information (the content of an unpublished opinion) in advance of the time that such communication is to occur (in a brief or at oral argument)—operate as an impermissible prior restraint on attorney speech.
期刊介绍:
The Columbia Law Review is one of the world"s leading publications of legal scholarship. Founded in 1901, the Review is an independent nonprofit corporation that produces a law journal edited and published entirely by students at Columbia Law School. It is one of a handful of student-edited law journals in the nation that publish eight issues a year. The Review is the third most widely distributed and cited law review in the country. It receives about 2,000 submissions per year and selects approximately 20-25 manuscripts for publication annually, in addition to student Notes. In 2008, the Review expanded its audience with the launch of Sidebar, an online supplement to the Review.