Conventional wisdom holds that the world trade system evolved from a power-based to a rules-based regime. “To a large degree,” one of the pioneers of the academic study of international trade notes, “the history of civilization may be described as a gradual evolution from a power oriented approach, in the state of nature, towards a rule oriented approach.” In a steady, unidirectional process of legalization, the argument goes, trade law has gradually replaced trade politics. In particular, the creation ten years ago of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) is commonly portrayed as a constitutional moment when the stability of the rule of law finally eclipsed the caprices of politics and diplomacy.

Everyone suspects that Supreme Court justices’ own views of policy play a part in their decisions, but the size and nature of the part is a matter of vague impression and frequent dispute. Do their preferences exert some pressure at the margin or are they better viewed as the mainsprings of decision? The latter claim, identified with legal realism, has been lent some support by political scientists who point out that some justices regularly vote for or against certain kinds of claims (for example, under the Fourth Amendment), or that votes in some areas are broadly predictable according to a single “ideal point” that tries to sum up each justice’s preferences, or that justices who dissent from a decision often will not acquiesce to it in future cases.

The claims of a patent are central to virtually every aspect of patent law. The claims define the scope of the invention, and their meaning therefore determines both whether a defendant’s product infringes a patent and whether the patent is valid. One of the most significant aspects of patent litigation is “claim construction,” the process of defining the words of the claim in other, theoretically clearer words.

Some judges are less ambitious than others; they have minimalist tendencies. Minimalists are unambitious along two dimensions. First, they seek to rule narrowly rather than broadly. In a single case, they do not wish to resolve other, related problems that might have relevant differences. They are willing to live with the costs and burdens of uncertainty, which they tend to prefer to the risks of premature resolution of difficult issues.

Ann-Marie Brege’s parents established an irrevocable trust in 1985, with Ann-Marie as sole beneficiary. When Merrill Lynch Trust Co. took over as trustee years later, however, the trust’s principal dropped sharply, losing over half its value in just a few years. Ann-Marie sued in Michigan probate court, alleging that Merrill Lynch had violated its legal duties in administering the trust. Since Ann-Marie was from New York and Merrill Lynch had its head-quarters in New Jersey, Merrill Lynch had an apparently easy argument for diversity jurisdiction. In an unremarkable turn of events, Merrill Lynch filed a notice of removal to federal district court.

“Every statement has a dual nature, it is both a fact and the assertion of fact, and on the guise in which it appears depends whether it is original evidence or hearsay, the respectable Dr. Jekyll is received with a becoming respect, but the disrespectable Mr. Hyde is kicked ignominiously out of court.”