Honoring Dan Meltzer

Dan Meltzer was a giant in the field of Federal Courts, and it is hard to overstate his influence on its development. He taught Federal Courts at Harvard Law School and was a long-time co-author of Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System ("Hart & Wechsler"), the casebook that created the field and shaped how generations of judges, lawyers, and scholars think about complex questions of federal jurisdiction. In addition, Dan enriched the field immeasurably by writing seminal articles on a wide range of Federal Courts topics. His work was characterized by deep knowledge of the law, the relevant history, and the surrounding literature. After reading one of Dan's articles, one always came away with a deeper understanding of the problems he examined and the potential solutions to them. Because of his efforts to link doctrine with theory, Dan's influence has extended well beyond the academy. His work has been cited dozens of times by the Supreme Court and hundreds of times by lower federal courts. Dan also taught thousands of Federal Courts students at Harvard Law School for nearly three decades--students who went on to become, among other things, law clerks, legal scholars, and judges. As I learned early in my career, Dan was very generous in giving comments and advice to young scholars who sent him drafts or reprints of their work. In all of these ways and more, Dan profoundly impacted every aspect of the field of Federal Courts. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him or were familiar with his work. When I became Chair-Elect of the Federal Courts Section of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), my primary responsibility was to organize a panel discussion to be held at the next annual meeting. Like so many scholars in the field, I was a great admirer of Dan's work, and I knew that he had been dealing with serious health issues for some time. Few people have made a larger contribution to the field of Federal Courts than Dan Meltzer, so I reached out to him to see if he would mind if I organized a panel honoring his work. After giving it some thought, he told me that he had no objection so long as the panel focused on his scholarship and not on his illness. As the panel took shape, he was pleased that the panelists would engage in a substantive discussion of his work, and that the papers would be published in the annual Federal Courts issue of the Notre Dame Law Review, in which he had published on more than one occasion. (1) He also told me that he hoped to attend the panel, but that he might not be able to do so. Tragically, he passed away several months before the panel. This special issue includes contributions by six of the nation's leading Federal Courts scholars. (2) Each participant examines an area of Federal Courts law influenced by Dan's scholarship. The variety of topics covered in this issue is a testament to the importance and lasting impact of his work in the field of Federal Courts. Dick Fallon was Dan's long-time Hart & Wechsler co-author and colleague at Harvard Law School. He also coauthored several important articles with Meltzer. Building upon their prior work together, Professor Fallon examines the proper role of federal courts in interpreting federal statutes. (3) As Fallon shows, Meltzer believed that federal courts had a role to play in interpreting statutes that went beyond simply decoding the semantic meaning of enacted texts. He thought that courts should engage in purposive interpretation to produce just and workable statutory schemes. Fallon builds on these themes and suggests that federal courts should view themselves as Congress's junior partners in the lawmaking process, tasked with promoting justice and human welfare. Vicki Jackson was also one of Dan's colleagues at Harvard Law School. Building on insights from Dan's work on the role of courts and constitutional remedies, Professor Jackson examines the timely issue of whether the Supreme Court should recognize expanded legislative standing in separation of powers disputes, and notes potential similarities to the Court's earlier expansion of public interest standing. …