Search

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article deals with the work of constitutional lawyer Hans Kelsen and his political philosophy. Kelsen was long considered a "persona non grata" in Germany, as he was despised during the Weimar era. He was a legal positivist and critic of ideology, who reduced the state to positive law and the constitution. Kelsen did not see the people as an idealized community, but as a society in which different groups compete to enforce their interests. His identity theses state that the state is law and that law is ultimately power. The article deals with Hans Kelsen's positivist conception of law and its significance for democracy. Kelsen defines "law" as what is made by humans as legislation, and emphasizes that it is not necessarily just or derived from higher authorities. He argues that democracy presupposes such a positivist conception of law and is based on freedom and relativism of values. The article also mentions other thinkers such as Max Weber and Niklas Luhmann, who held similar views. The anthology "Kelsen in Context" by Horst Dreier provides a comprehensive introduction to Kelsen's life and work, as well as to theories of law, state, and democracy. It is also mentioned that Dreier was proposed as a judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, but was not appointed due to controversies and resistance from various political factions. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: A critical area of study of the federal courts includes those who serve on the nation's highest tribunals. While most studies of judicial diversity address the crucial issues of race or gender, we examine the cross‐time dynamics of religious affiliations within the federal courts in the United States to more broadly encompass the concept of diversity. Methods: We analyze over two centuries of data on the religious affiliations of judges on the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, as well as that of justices on the Supreme Court, by employing descriptive data derived from public sources and our own survey instrument, and multivariate time‐series models. Results: Our mixed‐method analyses show that the federal courts, traditionally the near‐exclusive province of Protestants, have grown more religiously diverse over time. We illustrate that specific, salient political events, including President Wilson's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in 1916 and the elections of Presidents Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976, directly influenced the dynamics of religious affiliations in the federal courts. Conclusions: The ascent of religious diversity in the federal courts was neither smooth nor inevitable. By incorporating the notion of belonging as a measure of religious identity and affiliation, we exhibit that a multifaceted process over time transformed religious diversity in the federal courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article claims that recent Supreme Court decisions have allowed state lawmakers to suppress and skew but not subvert the vote. The Court relaxed federal oversight of state election administration in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Abbott v. Perez (2018), and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), and gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), while prohibiting independent state legislative election regulation in Moore v. Harper (2023). These decisions guided state lawmakers toward vote suppression and skewing, and away from election subversion. Consequently, Republican state legislatures have passed state constitutional amendments and statutes limiting ballot access and reforming state redistricting practices. While some Democratic state legislatures have protected ballot access and independent redistricting, these recent Supreme Court decisions help Republicans win a disproportionate share of state legislative seats. National courts thus help preserve the national party coalition by opening subnational jurisdictions to party entrenchment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People tasked with replacing a departing group member are disproportionately likely to choose a replacement with the same demographic identity, leading to demographic "stickiness" in group composition. We examine this effect in 2,163 U.S. federal judge appointments over 75 years, in the selection of 5,616 S&P 1500 board directors from 2014 to 2019, and in four preregistered experiments (n = 2,900). The patterns we document are generally consistent with both impact aversion (desires to minimize changes to group composition and dynamics) and diversity loss aversion (outsized concerns about losing ground on demographic diversity relative to interests in gaining ground). Ultimately, our results suggest that replacement decisions are influenced by loss-averse preferences regarding the demographic identities of departing group members. The propensity to choose new group members based on whether they demographically resemble their predecessors suggests that once progress toward diversification has occurred, it should be "sticky," so backsliding is less likely than might otherwise be expected. An optimistic outlook is that one-time interventions to change group composition may have a lasting impact, and change agents committed to diversification may have enduring effects on equality beyond their tenure. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Supplemental Material: The data files and online supplement are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4897. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (JCDA), it falls to federal judges in each circuit to investigate and redress complaints about their colleagues' behavior. A controversial provision of the Act authorizes the temporary suspension of misbehaving judges from new case assignments. Judges suspended under the Act--most recently, Judge Pauline Newman in the Federal Circuit--have argued that this amounts to effectively removing them from office without impeachment, violating constitutional protections of judicial tenure and independence. No court has invalidated a suspension on this basis so far. Yet courts have reserved the question taken up here, namely whether a long-term suspension could, by its practical effect, cross the line into removal. Returning to first principles, this Comment develops and defends a bright-line rule for conceptualizing effective removal. Article III vests federal judges with the power to decide legal cases and controversies within limits set by the Constitution and Congress. Individual judges are not entitled to dockets of any particular size or scope. Yet possessing some measure of case-deciding power is a necessary condition for holding judicial office. It follows that a judge does not hold office if she does not wield any judicial power, as when a categorical prohibition on hearing cases eliminates her entire docket. When a case-suspension sanction under the JCDA even temporarily has that effect, disqualifying a judge who lacks assigned cases from further assignments, it unconstitutionally removes the judge from office. After crystallizing the concept of effective removal, the Comment attends to non-merits-related reasons that courts are unlikely to accept this challenge to the JCDA even in compelling cases; assesses the risk that the Act's case-suspension provision could be abused to effectively remove judges for improper reasons; and ultimately proposes a targeted amendment to the provision that would foreclose the possibility of effective removal and conform the Act's scheme of judicial self-discipline to the Constitution's separation of powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal law authorizes the reinstatement of a prior removal order when a noncitizen "reenter[s] the United States without authorization after having already been removed." It further provides an "expedited process" for doing so, denying to such noncitizens the right to contest before an immigration judge their removability or inadmissibility. The question whether a noncitizen is removable is thus definitively settled immediately upon reinstatement. But the question to where the noncitizen will be removed is less certain. This is because noncitizens subject to reinstated orders of removal retain the right to pursue "withholding-only" relief, which precludes removal to the noncitizen's home country when extreme dangers await them there. This lag--between when removability, on one hand, and the country of removal, on the other, are determined--has exposed an ambiguity in the statute providing for judicial review of a "final order of removal," 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Specifically, § 1252(b)(1) requires that a noncitizen file a petition for review within thirty days of the final order of removal. But when does a reinstated order of removal become final? Specifically, does finality attach when the prior removal order is reinstated (such that removability is determined) or when the administrative process for adjudicating claims for withholding-only relief has concluded (such that the country of removal is determined)? On this question, the courts of appeals are divided. This Comment contends that the soundest construction of § 1252 deems reinstated orders of removal final when withholding-relief proceedings conclude. Such a construction is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, is more faithful to the statutory text, and better comports with the framework established by § 1252. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a pre-registered 2 × 2 × 2 factorial between-subject randomized lab experiment with 61 federal judges, we test if the law influences judicial decisions, if it does so more under a rule than under a standard, and how its influence compares to that of legally irrelevant sympathies. Participating judges received realistic materials and a relatively long period of time (50 min) to decide an auto accident case. We find at best weak evidence that the law matters or that rules constrain more than standards, and no evidence of a sympathy effect. (JEL K00, K13, K40, K41) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "New Insights into SARS-Coronavirus-2" reports on an international research study that has gained new insights into the entry of SARS-Coronavirus-2 into cells and its effects. The serine protease TMPRSS2 plays an important role in enhancing cell infection and influencing immune response, cell death, and virus development. These findings could contribute to the development of future treatment and prevention strategies. The results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). In another study, it was found that TMPRSS2-mediated cell entry influences virus and host properties as well as the course of infection. The study shows that more efficient virus uptake enhances infection and amplifies the immune responses of infected cells. It was also found that not only human TMPRSS2 proteins but also those from other mammalian species can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection. The presiding judge at the Federal Social Court, Prof. Dr. Bernd Schütze, has retired upon reaching the retirement age. Prof. Dr. Schütze has been a judge at the BSG since 2007 and has held various positions, including membership in the BSG's Judicial Council. He will continue to be active in teaching and literature after his retirement. [Extracted from the article]

The article highlights the transformation of a federal judge's chambers from paper-based to paperless operations through the adoption of Microsoft OneNote. It emphasizes the efficiency and organization benefits of OneNote in managing tasks, notes, and planning for hearings, meetings, and trials. The judge's virtual notebook structure, including sections for a law clerk handbook, hearings, meetings, and trials, is detailed.

The Federal Rules of Evidence have been pronounced dead. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Evidence have recently been declared dormant, stagnant, frozen, lethargic, and yes, deceased. In The Living Rules of Evidence, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 937 (March 2022), Professor Alexander Nunn claims that the Rules are lifeless, incapable of any meaningful change, and littered with anachronistic and even dangerous standards and provisions. To blame for the moribund state of the Federal Rules of Evidence is the bureaucratic and complex federal rulemaking process that requires amendments to traverse multiple constituencies in a multi-year process before taking effect. As a result of this cumbersome structure, Professor Nunn declares meaningful evidentiary progress through rulemaking an impossibility. The antidote to this sorry state of affairs is to be found in the "Living Evidence" theory that returns to the glory days of common law development of evidentiary reform and empowers federal judges to create revolutionary evidence standards fit for the twenty-first century. By emphasizing the normative justifiability of evidentiary standards-and even by elevating considerations of justifiability over fidelity to rule text-federal judges can purportedly accomplish the sweeping change that the Federal Rules of Evidence so desperately need. To borrow the legendary words apocryphally coined by Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Federal Rules of Evidence have been greatly exaggerated. "Living Evidence" theory depends upon two critical assumptions: that the Federal Rules of Evidence are irretrievably stagnant and that federal judges can breathe them back to life by emphasizing the perceived modern justifiability of evidentiary outcomes over fidelity to rule text. This Article dismantles both, first offering a careful look at the statutorily prescribed rulemaking process by which the Rules are reformed under the Rules Enabling Act and highlighting the significant reforms ushered in through that process-reforms that have improved the rights of the criminally accused, protected the interests of sexual assault victims, clarified the standards for admitting expert opinion testimony, and transformed the doctrine of privilege waiver to account for the modern realities of electronic discovery. It then demonstrates the analytical defects of "Living Evidence" theory, revealing the grave threat to important separation of powers interests posed by judicial rejection of the Federal Rules of Evidence in pursuit of outcomes perceived to be normatively "justifiable." It reveals that evidentiary standards are the product of complex policy determinations constitutionally entrusted to the democratic rulemaking process and are not empirically derived scientific truths that the federal judiciary may uniformly intuit. This Article emphasizes the variability and unpredictability sure to characterize judicial determinations of normative justifiability in the evidence space that would allow "Living Evidence" theory to be mobilized in service of multifarious, and perhaps nefarious, aims. This Article further highlights the faulty mechanics of "Living Evidence" in action that doom the theory as unrealistic and unworkable. It demonstrates that the Federal Rules of Evidence would become a paper tiger powerless to curb an onslaught of ill-conceived reforms were the federal judiciary to heed the call to deemphasize fidelity to the Rules. Finally, the Article explores some of the specific reforms that "Living Evidence" theory promises to deliver, revealing the incoherent and systemically bankrupt patchwork of advances it threatens to produce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of pretrial dashboards by federal judges to analyze and understand their pretrial release and detention decisions. The dashboards provide judges with access to a wealth of pretrial information, allowing them to examine release patterns, assess factors associated with release, and compare their decisions to national, circuit, and district-level data. The dashboards also provide information on detention mechanisms, special conditions imposed on released defendants, and violation rates among released defendants. Efforts are being made to promote their use through training and outreach, and there are plans to make a modified version of the dashboards available to the public. Overall, the pretrial dashboards are seen as a crucial tool for judges to improve their understanding of the pretrial system and make informed decisions. [Extracted from the article]

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the contribution of Fetha Negest to the development of Ethiopia's legal system and to evaluate the present judges' appointment law of Ethiopia in line with indigenous sources. It focuses particularly on Fetha Negest, which had a significant impact on Ethiopia's judicial system until the early 1940s. To this effect, the research for this paper discovered chapter 43 of the Fetha Negest and the federal judicial administration proclamation No. 1233/2021 through critical review. The paper thus finds that the current laws do not confirm Fetha Negest as their source and instead opt to transplant legal ideas from other countries. Due to this, the laws have been repeatedly amended and lack acceptance. Moreover, these transplanted laws face the issue of compatibility with the local culture. Legislators and concerned bodies should thus turn to indigenous sources before adopting external ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of GWP: Gesellschaft Wirtschaft Politik is the property of Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We document judicial leniency on defendant birthdays across 4.8 million decisions. Our results are consistent with reference-dependent social preferences. First, French sentences are 1% fewer and around 5% shorter. Second, U.S. federal judges also round down sentences except when rounding up makes available sentencing reductions for good behavior. No leniency appears on the days before or after a defendant's birthday. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of managerial judges in modern multidistrict litigation (MDL). It discusses how federal judges have increasingly taken on a managerial role in the pretrial and post-adjudication phases of litigation. It explores how MDL allows for the temporary transfer of related cases from across the country to a single federal judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

We study the effect of hearing cases alongside female judicial colleagues on the probability that a federal judge hires a female law clerk. Federal judges are assigned to judicial panels at random and have few limitations on their choices of clerks. Using a unique dataset of federal case records merged with judicial hiring information, we find a significant effect of the fraction of copanelists who are female on a male judge's likelihood of hiring a female clerk. This finding suggests that increases in the diversity of the upper rungs of a profession can create opportunities at the entry level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a case (or declining to), federal courts are participants in the separation of powers. Stemming from this idea, this Article introduces the concept of separation-of-powers avoidance. Judges employ familiar techniques to avoid compelling high-level coordinate-branch officials to act. Undertaking an original review of cases ranging from executive privilege to Congress’s subpoena power to congressional standing, this Article documents and models separation-of-powers avoidance. It explores how courts have dug a protective moat around the separation of powers through transdoctrinal principles that can, if taken beyond the courtroom, distort the interpretation of the separation of powers. From constitutional rights to statutory interpretation, scholarship has recognized that judicial expositions of legal principles are not necessarily coterminous with underlying law. This Article extends that insight to the structural Constitution. It then theorizes this form of avoidance as a phenomenon reflecting uniquely judicial considerations. Finally, it offers normative prescriptions for the resolution of separation-of-powers conflict outside of federal courts. Separation-of-powers doctrine refracted through the lens of avoidance should not be taken outside of the courtroom. Bilateral negotiations between Congress and the President should not incorporate this form of doctrine, and both public and legal discourse should adjust to account for avoidance’s distortionary effects on the structural Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes public attitudes toward replacing lifetime tenure with term limits for federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court justices. We employ novel data that we collected from a nationwide survey experiment. We find that although partisans are less supportive of proposals from their opponents, the magnitude of this effect is much smaller than one might expect in today's polarized environment. We also find that a respondent's support for term limits is a function of his or her subjective ideological agreement with the Supreme Court. Finally, we demonstrate that although support for term limits is generally high, only a modest subset of reform supporters believe that term limits should be a top political priority. These supporters also tend to exhibit weaker levels of support for the rule of law more generally. Taken together, the results contribute to our understanding of an issue of significant importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal judges have managed themselves out of the federal appellate process for ordinary appeals. Managing out refers to a management style where the boss makes the employee's work so intolerable as to induce her to quit; the employee's managed out instead of terminated. Something similar has been happening at the federal appellate courts over the last half century. A flood of ordinary, routine matters brought by (mostly) pro se litigants has spurred a managerial transformation at the federal appellate courts. And that transformation has mostly involved removing the federal judge from the ordinary work of the federal appellate courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substantial race-based disparities exist in federal criminal sentencing. We analyze 380,000 recent (2006--2019) sentences in the JUSTFAIR database and show that these disparities are large and vary considerably across judges. Judges assign White defendants sentences 13% shorter than Black defendants' and 19% shorter than Hispanic defendants' sentences, on average, conditional on case characteristics and district. Judges one standard deviation above average in their estimated Black--White disparity give Black defendants sentences 39%conditionally longer than White defendants' sentences, vis-à-vis average disparity of 13%. Judges one standard deviation above average in their estimated Hispanic--White disparity give Hispanic defendants sentences 49% conditionally longer than White defendants' sentences, compared to the average disparity of 19%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Judgment and Mercy: The Turbulent Life and Times of the Judge Who Condemned the Rosenbergs" by Martin Siegel is a biography that explores the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and its impact on American Jewish communal life in the 1950s. The book delves into the factors that influenced Judge Irving R. Kaufman's ruling, including his upbringing, education, and cultural anxieties. It also examines how the Rosenberg sentence affected Kaufman's later decisions. The biography sheds light on the complexities of individual experiences during the trial and its aftermath, offering a nuanced exploration of the case's significance in American history and culture. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on President James Buchanan's nominated chief justice of Utah Territory Delana R. Eckels, focusing particularly on his views regarding polygamy, Mormonism, Mormon leader Brigham Young, and the party platform of the Democratic Party regarding the Mormons. Topics explored include his role in the Utah War, public sentiment regarding the Mormon Church and its founder Joseph Smith, issues of freedom of religion and "local sovereignty," and issues of state and federal oversight related to slavery and the domestic sphere.

The article focuses on the federal judges overturning the final remaining conviction of Franklin Tao, a former University of Kansas chemical engineer, in a case related to allegations of defrauding the U.S. government by hiding research ties to China.

In the article, the author presents a tribute to U.S. Federal Judge David F. Hamilton during his retirement. Also cited are Hamilton's attributes like integrity and intelligence that were shown during his work as practicing lawyer, counsel to the governor of Indiana, and District and Circuit Court judge, and his case vindicating the constitutionality of an Indiana statute.

The article focuses on the problem of senior judges, who can remain in active service for life after confirmation but often go "senior" after reaching retirement age, still hearing and deciding cases, even influencing the law in the U.S.It mentions the shortcomings of the existing literature, identifies the "old hand problem," and suggests some incremental changes to solve it. It also mentions political polarization, demographic factors, legislative action, court-packing.

Multidistrict litigation has become an increasingly important tool for aggregating claims. Whether an MDL is created in the first place is decided by a seven-member panel of federal judges, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). But the JPML decides not only whether to create an MDL; it decides also where and before whom to centralize MDLs for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In deciding where and to whom to transfer cases arising under federal law, the JPML can consider the choice-of-law rule applicable in the transferee court. Under the dominant rule among federal courts, the MDL court applies its own law. As a practical matter, this means that the JPML has the power to steer an MDL to a particular court and to a particular judge, mindful of the law that will apply and how that law will affect the outcome of the case. Such a practice is not only contrary to a well-established norm against “matching” judges and cases. It also endows the JPML with an outsized power over these suits. This Article uncovers this largely ignored and considerable power of the JPML that enables it to achieve substantive ends through the nation’s MDL dockets. It evaluates two alternative choice-of-law rules. But, more importantly, it proposes that federal judges be randomly assigned to preside over MDLs—a solution that is more likely to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Thesis Juris is the property of Revista Thesis Juris and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Teoría & Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico is the property of Editorial Tirant Lo Blanch SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 1922, President Warren G. Harding selected Pittsburgh's Robert M. Gibson, Sr. to fill an open seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Although many major league baseball players also have been lawyers, to date Gibson is the only one to ever become a federal judge. This essay provides the first detailed look at Gibson's remarkable life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary constitutional doctrines vary widely and wildly in the degree to which federal judges will adhere to them reliably. Some constitutional doctrines reflect judicial candor—sincere judicial reason giving rather than judicial verisimilitude—and effectively constrain judicial discretion. For example, the First Amendment doctrine against prior restraints constitutes a meaningful constitutional rule. The federal courts apply it faithfully and reflexively to protect the right of the press to publish newsworthy information. By way of contrast, however, the Justices observe the “rules” that ostensibly govern the doctrine of stare decisis in constitutional cases far more often in the breach than in the observance. Accordingly, the doctrine of stare decisis, at least in constitutional cases, is nothing more than constitutional makeweight: The Supreme Court says one thing while actually doing another. This bad habit, which has persisted over time and variations in the ideological composition of the Supreme Court, makes federal judges appear even more political than they actually are. It also introduces needless uncertainty into the adjudication of constitutional rights. Constitutional makeweights are pernicious and should be systematically weeded out of the pages of U.S. Reports. Federal judges, especially those serving on the Supreme Court, should mean what they say and say what they mean. The legitimacy of the federal courts’ judgments largely rests on the persuasive force of the reasons that jurists offer in support of them; when federal judges offer bogus reasoning in support of a constitutional decision, the legitimacy of the judgment suffers. Unlike the President and members of Congress, Article III judges lack a democratic imprimatur; lacking both the power of the sword and the purse, as Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 78, federal judges must rely on persuasion and legal logic to make their judgments stick. Moreover, rather than reduce ambiguity and uncertainty, ersatz reasons and reasoning actually increase them because participants in the legal system do not know whether to argue the stated rule or the de facto rule. Third and finally, constitutional makeweights fail in their core purpose because rather than reducing judicial discretion, they radically increase it. If federal judges expect We the People to credit their oft-repeated claim that they are engaged in something other than ordinary politics, then they must embrace with brio the virtue of candor when giving reasons in support of their constitutional judgments. Taking this step would help to arrest and perhaps even reverse the public’s increasing—and quite justified—cynicism about the work of the federal courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses some insurgent spatial practices from the indigenous movement in Brazil considering the contemporaneous conjuncture of juridical-legal offensive. Firstly, we have offered as a background a discussion about the problem of the colonial origin imposed by the modern State in what we call America, an element that is present until today in countless conflicts of territorialities in our continent and that have repercussions on current indigenous spatial practices. Afterward, we have contextualized the juridical-legal offensive in contemporary Brazil, highlighting the thesis of the marco temporal ("time frame”) still being judged in the Federal Supreme Court and the main Bills in progress in the National Congress that constitute an antiindigenous agenda. Next, we have focused on the insurgent spatial practices, notably the retomadas and self-demarcations, and, in addition, the constitution of networks and the politics of scale. In the following section, we have deepened the analysis of a territorial experience of self-demarcation related to the Munduruku Planalto people, in Santarém, western Pará. Finally, we have concluded by highlighting the limits of the logic of the modern State facing reconquest and defense of indigenous territories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]