Publication
Michigan State Law Review
Volume
2023
Page
195
Year
2023
Abstract
Magistrate judges within the United States district court system have historically been viewed as a means to alleviate the large caseloads faced by district court judges. Magistrate judges issue Reports and Recommendations (R&Rs), wherein they detail the underlying facts, analyze relevant legal issues, and outline a proposed order for district court judges to follow. While district court judges may reject or modify R&Rs submitted to them, district court judges overwhelmingly adopt R&Rs, even after a purportedly de novo determination. In doing so, this Article posits that constitutionally-appointed district court judges are abrogating their Article III constitutionally required role to magistrate judges with little or no oversight. Analyzing R&Rs considered by United States district court judges for the District of Minnesota from 2017 to 2019, this Article finds that magistrate judge R&Rs are affirmed at abnormally high levels, calling into question the constitutionality of the appointment of magistrate judges and their exercise of Article III judicial power. Based on this empirical data, this Article offers a critical assessment of the merits of the present role of magistrate judges and ultimately argues for the existing system’s elimination.
Recommended Citation
Edward S. Adams, An Empirical Constitutional Crisis: When Magistrate Judges Exercise De Facto Article III Power, 2023 Michigan State Law Review 195 (2023) (with Edward R. Adams and William C. Price Jr.)
