News
Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti-Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department
News
Following Dining Hall Crowds, Harvard College Won’t Say Whether It Tracked Wintersession Move-Ins
News
Harvard Outsources Program to Identify Descendants of Those Enslaved by University Affiliates, Lays Off Internal Staff
News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Class Session With Gazan Patients, Calling It One-Sided
News
Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory
Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of Law, yesterday criticized a study proposing revisions in the operations of the Supreme Court, Paul A. Freund, Loeb University Professor, headed the government-sponsored study group.
In a report published last month. The Study Group on the Caseload of the Supreme Court recommended the formation of a National Court of Appeals which would review all cases before they reached the Supreme Court.
Any case which three of the seven members of the appellate court felt was notable would be passed on to the Supreme Court. This would reduce the caseload of the Supreme Court from about 4500 cases to 500 cases, Freund said.
In an article in The New York Times Sunday, Dershowitz said that former chief Justice Earl Warren feared the proposed appellate court would be a political tool to obstruct the Supreme Court.
Yesterday Dershowitz called the report "a serious attempt to confront a difficult problem," but said that he felt that the recommendations were too extreme. He said that he favored a staggered series of innovations in the court structure with trial periods on each new measure.
Freund said yesterday that critics of the proposal have ignored some of the positive aspects of the proposed appellate court. The proposed court is empowered to resolve conflicting decisions from the lower courts which currently are not reviewed. The proposal also sets up a board to give a legal outlet to people in prison.
He also said that the most commonly suggested innovation, expanding the court staff, had been rejected by the study group because it would have severely changed the tone of the court, making it a "high-speed, high-volume" operation instead of a conscientious review.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.