57 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2015)

handle is hein.journals/arz57 and id is 1 raw text is: 














      SECURITIES LITIGATION IN THE

          ROBERTS COURT: AN EARLY

                        ASSESSMENT



                          John   C. Coates  IV*





This Article provides an early assessment-both quantitative and qualitative-of the
Roberts Court's securities-law decisions. While the Roberts Court has continued to
take an average of one to two securities-law cases per year, such cases represent an
increased share of the Supreme Court's docket, compared to prior Courts, because
its overall docket has shrunk. The Roberts Court has maintained the same overall
split in expansive or restrictive outcomes as the post-Powell Rehnquist Court,
but has reduced polarization: more than half were unanimous and  only three
included five-vote majorities. An attitudinal model does no better than a coin flip in
predicting outcomes. This Article shows a newly heightened role for procedure and
a resistance to bright-line rules, with procedural decisions more restrictive and
rejections of bright-line rules more expansive, factors that predict outcomes for
cases argued in the October 2014 term, and the types of cases likely to attract the
attention of the Court in the future. The turn to procedure matches the background
and interests of the Chief Justice, a former appellate litigator, leading a broader
procedural revolution on the Court that stretches beyond the limited reach of
securities law.


                          TABLE   OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION            ............................................. .......2

I. GENERAL TRENDS  IN SECURITIES-LAW CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT  ....... 5
   A. Data and Coding                          ................5........... .................5
   B. Quantitative Overview  .........................................   6
   C. Qualitative Overview     .............................   ............. 10


       *    John F. Cogan Jr. Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School.
Thanks for helpful discussions, but no blame for the contents of this Article, should go to
Allen Farrell, Helen Hershkoff, Scott Hershovitz, Bert Huang, Martha Minow, Bill
Rubenstein, Ava Scheibler, and Kathy Stone-all faults are mine. Min Suk Choi, Casey
Holzapfel, and Jason Wasser provided excellent research assistance. For disclosure of
financial   interests  potentially  relevant   to     this   Article,   see
www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/COI/2012CoatesJohn.html.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?