Suja A. Thomas
Professor Suja A. Thomas's research interests include the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, civil procedure, and theories of constitutional interpretation. Her article "Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional," published by the Virginia Law Review, has been the basis of arguments in the federal courts and was featured in a piece in The New York Times where her argument was referred to as "perfectly plausible." A panel of the 6th Circuit referred to her historical analysis in that article as "interesting," and her article was the impetus for a symposium of the Iowa Law Review. Professor Thomas's other work has also been influential. Her article on remittitur was the basis of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, and a federal judge has commented that "her caution [regarding the effective elimination of the jury trial right through remittitur] merits evaluation by the federal courts."
Professor Thomas earned her bachelor of arts from Northwestern University in mathematics and received her law degree from New York University School of Law. At N.Y.U., she served as an articles editor on the N.Y.U. Law Review, and she received several awards including the Leonard M. Henkin Prize for her note on equal rights under the 14th Amendment, the Mendes Hershman Prize for excellence in writing in the field of property law and the William Miller Memorial Award for outstanding scholarship in the field of municipal law. After graduating from law school and a federal clerkship in Chicago, Professor Thomas practiced law in New York City with Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C. and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.
Professor Thomas began her academic career as a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 2000 and was a visiting professor at Vanderbilt University Law School in the spring of 2008. She joined the University of Illinois College of Law faculty in the fall of 2008.
Current Papers and Titles on SSRN
How Atypical, Hard Cases Make Bad Law (See, e.g., Lack of Judicial Restraint in Twombly, Wal-Mart, and Ricci), 48 Wake Forest L. Rev. __ (2013)
Nonincorporation, 88 Notre Dame L. Rev. 159 (2012)
Keynote: Before and After the Summary Judgment Trilogy, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 499 (2012) (colloquium)
Oddball Iqbal and Twombly and Employment Discrimination, 2011 Ill. L. Rev. 215
A Limitation on Congress: “In Suits at common law,” 71 Ohio St. L.J. 1071 (2010) (symposium)
The New Summary Judgment Motion: The Motion to Dismiss Under Iqbal and Twombly, 14 Lewis and Clark Law Review 15 (2010) (symposium)
Frivolous Cases, 59 DePaul Law Review 633 (2010) (symposium)
The Fallacy of Dispositive Procedure, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 759 (2009)
Why the Motion to Dismiss Is Now Unconstitutional, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 1851 (2008)
Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional, 93 Va. L. Rev. 139 (2007)
Why Summary Judgment Is Still Unconstitutional: A Reply to Professors Brunet and Nelson, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 1667 (2008) (symposium)
The Unconstitutionality of Summary Judgment: A Status Report, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 1613 (2008) (symposium)
Judicial Modesty and the Jury, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 767 (2005)
The Seventh Amendment, Modern Procedure and the English Common Law, 82 Wash. U. L.Q. 687 (2004)
Re-examining the Constitutionality of Remittitur Under the Seventh Amendment, 64 Ohio St. L.J. 731 (2003)
The Civil Jury: The Disregarded Constitutional Actor, U. of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 07-30