Issue 1 - Issue 2 - Issue 3 - Issue 4
Return to the index of our previous issues.
Public Nuisance Claims Against Gun Sellers: New Insights and Challenges
Jean Macchiaroli Eggen
John G. Culhane
go to abstract
Bilinguilism and Equality: Title VII Claims for Language Discrimination in the Workplace
James Leonard
go to abstract
An Examination of Patents, Licensing, Research Tools, and the Tragedy of the Anticommons in Biotechnology Innovation
Michael S. Mireles
go to abstract
Standard of Review for Prosecutorial Use of Race Evidence During Trial
Peter Chung
go to abstract
Tribal Employment Separation: Tribal Law Enigma, Tribal Governance Paradox, and Tribal Court Conundrum
Matthew L. M. Fletcher
go to abstract
Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critque of the Sentencing Guidelines
Jackie Gardina
go to abstract
An Implied Warranty of Freedom from Sexual Harassment: The Solution for Harassed Tenants Where the Fair Housing Act Has Failed
Theresa Keeley
go to abstract
State Legislation and Human Trafficking: Helpful or Harmful?
Stephanie Richard
go to abstract
State Sentencing Policy and New Prison Admissions
Ben Trachtenberg
go to abstract
Consumer-Directed Health Care and the Chronically Ill
John V. Jacobi
go to abstract
A Primer on the Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy Underpinning a School of Thought on Law and Business
James E. Holloway
go to abstract
Against Dictionaries: Using Analogical Reasoning to Achieve a More Restrained Textualism
Jason Weinstein
go to abstract
The Case for Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation
Brian O’Neill
go to abstract
For Whom the School Bell Tolls but Not the Statute of Limitations:
Minors and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Lynn M. Daggett
Perry A. Zirkel
LeeAnn L. Gurysh
go to abstract
Bayes’ Law, Sequential Uncertainties, and Evidence of Causation in Toxic Tort Cases
Neal C. Stout
Peter A. Valberg
go to abstract
Not Enough of a Minority?: Arab Americans and the Language Assistance Provisions (Section 203) of the Voting Rights Act
Brenda Fathy Abdelall
go to abstract
Fair Representation on Juries in the Eastern District of Michigan:
Analyzing Past Efforts and Recommending Future Action
Andrew J. Lievense
go to abstract
Public Nuisance Claims Against Gun Sellers: New Insights and Challenges
Jean Macchiaroli Eggen
John G. Culhane
Gun violence continues unabated. Regulation of these deadly instruments is woefully inadequate, and legislatures are compounding the problem by barring or restricting access to the courts for the death and injuries that guns cause. In short, Congress and state legislators have repeatedly acquiesced to the demands of the gun lobby.
During the past several years, cities have struck back by filing public nuisance claims against those gun sellers whose practices pose a risk to the public‘s health and safety. After a slow start, public nuisance claims have recently gained traction in state appellate courts, which are increasingly coming to realize and respect the core mission of public nuisance law. Such claims differ in essential ways from private claims as they do not seek to recover for injuries caused by guns, but rather allow municipalities to protect their citizens from the gun violence. Indeed, such nuisance abatement is a central component of the state‘s police power, which requires states and their political divisions to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Several public nuisance claims seeking to compel gun makers and sellers to refrain from practices that increase the already high risk of death or injury from their products have been permitted to survive the pleading stage. This is a salutary development and reflects better judicial understanding of the difference between nuisance law and tort law. This Article lauds these developments while undertaking a critical assessment of recent cases.
Part I provides an overview of public nuisance law and discusses some important differences between claims brought by public entities and those brought by private citizens. Part II goes into detail regarding the nature of the public nuisance caused by the conduct of gun sellers. In Part III, the Authors examine some of the recent decisions in which public nuisance claims against these gun dealers have been allowed to survive a motion to dismiss, a previously insuperable hurdle, while in Part IV they analyze the significance of these small victories for the future of similar litigation. Finally in Part V, the Authors describe legislative efforts to shield gun makers from these lawsuits and note flaws in the purported justifications for such legislation.
Bilinguilism and Equality: Title VII Claims for Language Discrimination in the Workplace
James Leonard
Linguistic diversity is a fact of contemporary American life. Nearly one in five Americans speak a language other than English in the home, and influxes of immigrants have been a constant feature of American history. The multiplicity of languages in American society has touched nearly all aspects of American culture, and specifically has added new and important challenges to the American workplace. Chief among these new concerns are the growing number of legal claims centered around language discrimination in the workplace. The common vehicle for these claims has been Title VII, and there is considerable support in the academic literature for the proposition that Title VII should be read to confer a right on bilingual employees to use a preferred language in the workplace when English is not necessitated by business or safety concerns.
This Article examines the usefulness of Title VII as a framework to address the growing number of language discrimination claims, and concludes that Title VII is an awkwardly adapted vehicle to address these types of workplace concerns. Title VII is based on a civil rights model that promotes even-handed treatment of employees, and does so through methods of proof that reflect a historically informed skepticism about an employer‘s motivations when dealing with a protected class of persons. Workplace language rules, in contrast, rarely involve stereotypes and normally are pertinent to an employer‘s operations. To confer a right to speak in a preferred language goes beyond Title VII‘s mandate of equal treatment and amounts to the creation of positive rights that are unconnected with equality in the workplace.
Part I of this Article introduces the reader to the nature of workplace language claims and their judicial disposition. Part II surveys the language competencies of Americans, relying primarily on results reported in the in the 2000 Census. Results indicate a high degree of English proficiency in the United States, indicating that the key issue in language policy is a bilingual‘s desire to speak in a native tongue, rather than providing for masses of persons who can‘t speak English. Part III examines the anti-discrimination concepts which underlie Title VII, finding that these concepts strongly embody the “civil rights model” which regards characteristics such as race and gender as improper bases for workplace decisionmaking. Part IV asks whether the civil rights model embodied in Title VII works with language discrimination claims, concluding that it does not. Language is fundamentally different from race, ethnicity, gender, or even national origin. The characteristics of mutability and relevance take language discrimination claims outside the realm of Title VII‘s civil rights model. Part V offers concluding remarks.
An Examination of Patents, Licensing, Research Tools, and the Tragedy of the Anticommons in Biotechnology Innovation
Michael S. Mireles
The continued development of and affordable access to potentially life saving pharmaceuticals, gene therapies and diagnostics is unquestionably a socially important issue. However, crafting government policy to encourage the development of and allowing affordable access to those services and products is difficult. On one hand, the development of those services and products requires a large investment of funds because of the complexity, collaborative nature, and uncertainty of the development of those products and services. Accordingly, investors require the safety of strong and stable patent rights to ensure a return on their investment in the development of a commercial end-product or a research tool. On the other hand, patents may foreclose competition for a particular product or service and enable a company to exact a supra competitive price for that product or service, thus denying access to people unable to afford that product or service. In arriving at that supra competitive price, the company selling the commercial end product may have to include in that price a number of additional costs imposed by holders of patented research tools needed in the development of the commercial end-product.
This Article examines whether the development of pharmaceuticals, gene therapies or diagnostics is being stifled by the inability of companies to access proprietary research tools needed for the development of those important products and services. This Article also evaluates proposals for alleviating problems in accessing proprietary research tools, and proposes recommendations to aid in the efficient transfer of that technology. First, this Article recommends that Congress enact a law similar to the proposed Genomic Science and Technology Innovation of Act of 2002, which requires the government to conduct a study of the effect of government policy on biotechnology innovation. Second, this Article recommends that the government encourage public and private parties to enter patent pools to efficiently transfer rights in biotechnology inventions. The government, in conjunction with private and public institutions, should create a publicly available database of proprietary research tools and licenses concerning those tools. The government should also modify the provision of the Bayh-Dole Act concerning reservation of a non-exclusive right to practice any patented invention created with federal funding. The modification would allow the government to transfer a non-exclusive license to a patented research tool developed with government funding to a patent pool created by industry participants if it is demonstrated that the owner of the patented research tool is unreasonably withholding the license of that tool from the pool. Any royalties resulting from the licensing of the research tool in the patent pool will be distributed to the owner of the patented research tool.
Part I of this Article provides definitions for research tools and commercial applications. Part II discusses the costs, benefits, and purposes of patent law. Part III reviews university and private research and development, including the influence of the Bayh-Dole Act. Part IV examines the development of commercial applications of biotechnology research, including the role of venture capital and the use of licensing provisions requiring reach through royalties and exclusivity. Part V evaluates problems that may occur in attempting to develop commercial applications and licensing patents. Part VI reviews the Tragedy of the Anticommons theory. Part VII discusses research and analysis concerning the existence of the anticommons problem. Part VIII examines and analyzes potential solutions for solving the Tragedy of the Anticommons in biotechnology. Finally, Part IX offers recommendations for addressing an existing or developing Tragedy of the Anticommons.
Standard of Review for Prosecutorial Use of Race Evidence During Trial
Peter Chung
This Note argues that unfettered use of cultural evidence by prosecutors creates the same problems as would the use of evidence of race to show propensity of the accused to act. Using Wisconsin v. Chu as a case study, the author demonstrates that cultural evidence, just as any other evidence to show propensity to act, must rest upon the proper evidentiary foundation and that prosecutors must be sharply constrained in their use of cultural evidence.
Tribal Employment Separation: Tribal Law Enigma, Tribal Governance Paradox, and Tribal Court Conundrum
Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Each year, more and more people—Indians and non-Indians—are employed by Indian Tribes and Tribally-chartered organizations. However, as Tribal employment grows, so do the problems associated with personnel disputes. Tribal employment is different than traditional corporate or even government employment because Tribal communities are incredibly close-knit and Tribal governments are very accountable to their constituents. Because of this dynamic, employment separations can create excessive difficulty within a Tribe. Many Tribal courts apply the principles of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loudermill, granting terminated employees the right to both an administrative and judicial hearing. However, these processes can often be incredibly painful for terminated employees and the administrative Tribal panels. They often undermine Tribal government operations and communities. To ameliorate some of these difficulties, Tribes should consider alternative ways to deal with employment separations. For example, Tribes might consider a separate court of employee claims, a Peacemaker Court model, or an automatic monetary remedy. Overall, any solution that rejects the dominant culture’s model and accommodates the particular needs of Tribal communities would be an improvement.
Compromising Liberty: A Structural Critique of the Sentencing Guidelines
Jackie Gardina
This Article contends that the federal sentencing guidelines—whether mandatory or discretionary—violate the constitutional separation of powers by impermissibly interfering with a criminal jury’s constitutional duty to act as a check against government overreaching. This Article posits that the inclusion of the criminal jury in Article III of the Constitution was intended as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances. This Article also submits a proposal for restoring the constitutional balance through the creation of a “guideline jury system” within the current guideline structure. The implementation of a guideline jury system would fill the constitutional void created by the current sentencing regime without destroying its underlying benefits. By making the jury a larger part of the guideline structure, the sentencing guidelines would no longer violate the separation of powers and the criminal jury would be reinstated as a viable check against government overreaching.
In Part I, this Article examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, specifically how the Court lost an opportunity to restore the jury to its rightful place in our tripartite system of government. By pronouncing the sentencing guidelines discretionary instead of mandatory, the Court simply transferred unchecked power from the hands of the prosecutor to the hands of the federal bench. In Part II, this Article illustrates how the sentencing guidelines interfere with the jury’s constitutional role by systematically discouraging a criminal defendant from asserting her right to a jury trial. While most case law and guideline critiques focus on the sentencing factors that increase a criminal defendant’s sentence, this Article focuses on the guideline mechanisms that decrease the sentence. Criminal defendants are routinely waiving their right to a jury trial based on these incentives. In Part III, this Article discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Patton v. United States where the Court made the unsupported declaration that Article III and the Sixth Amendment were to be read in pari materia. This Article contends that the Framers included the jury in Article III as a structural check against untrustworthy federal judges and overreaching by the Legislative and Executive Branches. Finally, in Part IV, this Article submits a proposal for restoring the constitutional balance. It contends that the equilibrium can be restored through the creation of a “guideline jury system” within the current guideline structure. By making the jury a larger part of the guideline structure the criminal jury, albeit in a different form, would be reinstated as a meaningful part of the constitutional sytem of checks and balances.
An Implied Warranty of Freedom from Sexual Harassment: The Solution for Harassed Tenants Where the Fair Housing Act has Failed
Theresa Keeley
Although sexual harassment in the workplace is recognized as a problem, sexual harassment in housing has largely been ignored. When confronting sexual harassment in housing, courts have borrowed standards for sexual harassment in the workplace. Criticism of this practice exists; however, this Article examines the real source of the problem: bringing sexual harassment claims under the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, this Article shows how and why the Fair Housing Act fails to address the problem of sexual harassment in housing. To remedy this failure, this Article proposes an “implied warranty of freedom from sexual harassment” that both restores the tenant’s loss of control and provides a non-judicial, self-help remedy to the tenant.
State Legislation and Human Trafficking: Helpful or Harmful?
Stephanie Richard
Human trafficking is the modern day form of slavery. Despite the fact that thousands of people are trafficked into the United Sates each year, the majority of U.S. citizens are not aware of the nature and extent of this problem. In 2000, the U.S. government passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) to combat this grave human rights abuse. This federal legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem of human trafficking in the United States by acknowledging that effective prosecution cannot occur without safeguards and benefits for trafficking victims. To this end, the VTVPA enumerates many social services and individual rights to better protect victims. States, however, as they begin to pass legislation to combat the problem of human trafficking in their own jurisdictions, are not adopting the comprehensive approach to combating human trafficking taken by the VTVPA. State legislation has mainly focused on a mere criminalization approach, and this raises serious concerns about necessary victim protections and effective prosecutions of these cases.
This Note outlines the problem of trafficking of persons into the United States, how previous laws did not address the problem, and the essential provisions in the VTVPA that protect victims of human trafficking in the United States. It then examines current state legislation passed to combat the problem of human trafficking, and weighs the benefits and possible negative consequences for victims of the mere criminalization approach taken by states. This Note argues that state legislation, which thus far has not included any of the comprehensive protections for victims found in the VTVPA, raises serious concerns about victims’ access to social service benefits, immigration status, witness protection, effective investigations, and legal remedies. Given these concerns, this Note concludes that states should tailor future legislation in this area to more fully meet the needs of victims. States should enact legislation criminalizing human trafficking only if the needs of victims are considered and should take a holistic approach in their own state legislation by adopting provisions similar to those found in the VTVPA.
State Sentencing Policy and New Prison Admissions
Ben Trachtenberg
As the academy’s focus has turned to sentencing in the wake of Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker, most commentators have continued their benign neglect of actual sentencing practices as they occur in state courts, not to mention whether and how such policies are effective in achieving the goals of criminal justice. This Note examines trends in state sentencing policies and prison populations from the perspective of a would-be state reformer hoping to decrease her state’s prison budget. Economic pressures, efficiency arguments, and social justice claims have combined to cause some states to desire lower prison populations, but few empirical studies exist of how states actually go about reducing their prison costs.
This Note begins with an examination of twenty years of prison admissions data, tracking the trends of new admissions into state prison systems. After identifying outlier states—those states whose low admissions defied national and regional trends—the Note presents three state case studies evaluating the policy choices contributing to the lower admissions. Next, recommendations are made for would-be reformers based on these results.
In addition to incarceration alternatives, special focus is placed on North Carolina’s “fiscal note” program, which, coupled with computer modeling of expected prison populations, has helped the state conduct informed debate about criminal sentencing. In the wake of sentencing reforms, the state has moved from having the nation’s top incarceration rate to a place in the middle of the pack, an impressive result given the continued priority of tough sentences for violent offenders.
Consumer-Directed Health Care and the Chronically Ill
John V. Jacobi
Insurance plans with consumer-controlled spending accounts are advocated as tools for reducing health costs and empowering consumers. This Article describes their recent development and argues that they are likely to fail. Instead of focusing on the small number of consumers with chronic illnesses who account for the bulk of health spending, they focus on the majority of relatively well consumers. This Article proposes market-based and regulatory changes focused on high-cost patients. To best serve cost and quality goals, health finance responsibility should be divided between consumers and their employers for predictable and routine costs, and government for chronic and catastrophic costs.
A Primer on the Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy Underpinning a School of Thought on Law and Business
James E. Holloway
Recent policyless and lawless business decisions have prompted the judiciary and legislature to erode managerial discretion and judgment. This Article is a primer on the theoretical, practical, and pedagogical requirements for a legal-managerial school of thought to measure the business losses created by these judicial and legislative responses. A legal-managerial school must provide a theoretical evaluation of law and public policy, a practical integration of legal analysis and business methodology, and a pedagogical expansion of legal thinking to include business information. This Article initiates the debate on how a legal-managerial school of thought can further the study, practice, and teaching of jurisprudence and business disciplines, and ultimately provide lawyers and managers with tools for business decision making.
Against Dictionaries: Using Analogical Reasoning to Achieve a More Restrained Textualism
Jason Weinstein
This Note argues that new textualists should abandon dictionaries as a source for legal interpretation. Textualists believe in restricting judges to the intent discernible from the words of a statute and contend that legislative history is unacceptable as a source of this intention. Both of these sentiments lead textualists to dictionaries as the intuitively correct solution for ambiguities in a text. The author argues, however, that dictionaries by their very nature cannot help discern between reasonable definitions at the margins of meaning. The use of dictionaries in these situations allows for a sham formalism, unrestrictive in result and unrevealing of a judge’s extra-legal considerations.
As a replacement for dictionaries, this Note suggests a classic method of legal thought: analogical reasoning. The author proposes that a judge faced with an ambiguous yet basic term should develop analogous phrases for the term’s possible usages. In reasoning among these analogies a judge would develop and articulate principles, revealing her legal and extra-legal considerations. The very transparency of the process would result in a restrictiveness based on the judge’s need to meet her peer’s process values.
The Case for Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation
Brian O’Neill
Partisan gerrymandering is a political tradition the United States can no longer afford. Due in part to the effects of partisan gerrymandering, very few congressional elections are meaningfully competitive. This Note argues that partisan gerrymandering damages both the quality of American democracy and the federal system of the United States. This Note concludes that the important federal interests at stake warrant action by Congress to halt partisan gerrymandering. The Note further concludes that any action by Congress should incorporate the principles of federalism by resisting the temptation to micromanage and Congress should instead require state commissions to draft the boundaries of congressional districts.
For Whom the School Bell Tolls but Not the Statute of Limitations:
Minors and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Lynn M. Daggett
Perry A. Zirkel
LeeAnn L. Gurysh
This Article explores whether claims under the federal special education statute should be tolled on account of minority. Adult disabled students typically assert this type of tolling claim when alleging statutory violations dating back ten or more years, when they were minors. However this tolling claim is decided, there may be undesired results. First, even if the student has a very strong case, the merits are never reached if the court dismisses the hearing request as untimely. Second, if the hearing request is timely and the case proceeds to the merits, the student must remain in her current educational placement, potentially at great cost, during the lengthy IDEA hearing and appeals process as mandated by the IDEA’s “stay put” provision. Moreover, the school may face difficulties defending the claim on the merits because under the IDEA, schools must allow parents and adult students to request destruction of their special education records to the extent the records are not currently required in order to provide services. Finally, unique challenges arise for schools because parents help develop their child’s special education program. Accordingly, schools rely on both the parents’ approval of the educational program, as well as the parents’ choice not to request a due process hearing for their minor child. The IDEA specifically assigns the right to make this decision to the parents of minor students, and not the minor students themselves, as part of the IDEA’s panoply of procedural safeguards.
Congress first addressed statute of limitations issues under the IDEA in the 2004 amendments. This Article surveys the relevant case law on whether to “borrow” tolling provisions from state statutes and reveals great variation among the courts. Specifically, the courts vary in their adherence to Supreme Court precedent, their ap-plication of this precedent, and their conclusions about whether tolling on account of minority should apply in IDEA disputes. The Article concludes that, because of the unique role the IDEA assigns to parents, the correct approach under the pre-2004 amendments is not to toll claims for minors. The Article then examines the new IDEA language, which creates explicit statutes of limitation, but does not explicitly address the issue of tolling for minor students. Consequently, in future litigation, students and parents are likely to claim that tolling for minors should be judicially read into the IDEA’s new statutes of limitations. However, this Article concludes, through an application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in this area, that a tolling rule for legal minors should not be read into the IDEA’s new statutes of limitation. Tolling for minors is inconsistent with congressional intent as evidenced by the pre-2004 amendments analysis, and further strengthened by the new amendments. Finally, the consequences of tolling are harsher than those of not tolling.
Bayes’ Law, Sequential Uncertainties, and Evidence of Causation in Toxic Tort Cases
Neal C. Stout
Peter A. Valberg
Judges are the gatekeepers of evidence. Arguably, the most difficult duty for a judicial gatekeeper is to screen the reliability of expert opinions in scientific fields such as medicine that are beyond the ken of most judges. Yet, judges have a duty to scrutinize such expert opinion evidence to determine its reliability and admissibility. In toxic tort cases, the issue of causation&emdash;whether the alleged exposures actually caused the plaintiff’s injury&emdash;is nearly always the central dispute, and determining admissibility of expert causation opinion is a daunting challenge for most judges. We present a comprehensive review of the courts’ struggles with the screening of scientific evidence in such cases. In addition, we propose an approach to the screening of causation opinions based on probability science and logic. Central to this approach is Bayes’ Law, a statistical tool that courts can use to analyze the extrinsic reliability of proffered causation testimony. We explain Bayes’ Law and illustrate its potential application for evaluating the reliability of medical and scientific causation testimony.
All evidence is probabilistic. There are uncertainties attending all testimony, not only because the honesty or objectivity of witnesses may be doubtful, but also because even honest and unbiased witnesses may be mistaken in their perceptions. Reliability of causation evidence depends on both sensitivity and specificity of the tests used to determine causation. Highly sensitive tests of causation reflect an ability to identify a high percentage of those with the agent-induced disease, whereas highly specific tests of causation reflect an ability to reject a high percentage of those who have the disease, but not induced by the agent at issue. According to Bayes’ Law, the reliability of causation opinion depends not only on the sensitivity and specificity of the tests employed by the causation expert, but also on the base-rate of the agent-induced disease in the population. Bayes’ Law dictates that the lower the rate of the agent-induced disease in the population, the less reliable the opinion that the agent at issue in fact caused the plaintiff’s disease given certain levels of sensitivity and specificity. The base-rate problem and its effect on reliability of causation opinions are overlooked by judges when scrutinizing the reliability of proffered causation evidence. In this Article, we encourage courts to consider a Bayes’ Law approach to screen out, at an early stage, those claims of injury lacking reliable evidence that an injury was more likely than not caused by exposures to toxic agents.
The goal of our Article is to provide a framework that helps the gatekeeper to screen out toxic tort claims insufficiently substantiated by the underlying scientific and medical data, and allow the factfinder to decide only those toxic tort claims for which there is reliable and relevant scientific support for each link of the causal chain, from subject exposure to the injury. Scientific substantiation of each causal link determines the reliability of an expert’s opinion that the exposure more likely than not caused the plaintiff’s injury.
Not Enough of a Minority?: Arab Americans and the Language Assistance Provisions (Section 203) of the Voting Rights Act
Brenda Fathy Abdelall
With the Voting Rights Act set to expire in 2007, debate has ensued regarding the protections it provides for minority groups. Section 203 of the Act protects language minorities, but under these protections, only four minority groups are afforded bilingual access to voting materials. This Note argues that the Act is imperative to the protection of minority voters, especially those belonging to a language minority group. This Note further argues that not only should the Voting Rights Act be renewed, but § 203 should be revised to include Arab Americans. The Note focuses on the Arab American community because it is one language minority group that is not protected under the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, there are several barriers to bilingual access under § 203. This Note explores these barriers and advocates revision of § 203 so that all language minorities may be afforded the full protections of the Voting Rights Act.
Fair Representation on Juries in the Eastern District of Michigan: Analyzing Past Efforts and Recommending Future Action
Andrew J. Lievense
This Note builds on past recommendations to reform jury selection systems to make juries more representative of the community. Juries representing a fair cross section of the community are both a statutory and constitutional requirement, as well as a policy goal. How a judicial district designs and implements its jury selection system is important to meeting this requirement.
Part I of this Note analyzes the history and development of the representativeness interest on juries, explains how the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan attempted to meet this interest in the 1980s and 1990s, and reports and addresses the current demographic information of jurors at two stages of the Eastern District’s selection system. Part II comments on prior proposals for reform of the jury selection system, and makes three proposals for reform: (1) improving the source lists from which jurors are drawn; (2) improving the jury questionnaire; and (3) if still necessary, increasing the representation levels of underrepresented groups on petit juries by decreasing their representation on grand juries. Part III analyzes potential constitutional and practical objections to the grand jury/petit jury reform.