PUBLICATIONS
New! Todd Welty, Andrew Weiner, and Gray Proctor, “Jarkesy, Originalism, and the Future of Tax Penalties,” Tax Notes Today Federal (April 16, 2026).
New! Gray Proctor, Andrew M. Weiner, Victor Suthammanont, and Megan L. Brackney, “Can Promoter Penalties Be ‘Excessive Fines’ Under the Eighth Amendment?,” Tax Notes Federal (October 27, 2025).
New! Megan L. Brackney, Victor Suthammanont, and Gray Proctor, “Does Due Process Require More Than Refund Jurisdiction Over Tax Promoter Penalties?,” Procedurally Taxing (August 15, 2025).
New! Gray Proctor, “Twelve Angry Taxpayers: Why the Constitution Might Guarantee a Jury Trial for Accuracy and Fraud Penalties in Tax Cases After SEC v. Jarkesy,” The Florida Bar Journal, Vol. 99, No. 3 (May/June 2025). Cited by two amicus parties – the Cato Institute and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation – at the cert stage in Hirsch v. United States Tax Court. The government has been ordered to respond.
Gray Proctor, “Summary Judgment, Scintillas, and Celotex: Reviewing the Federal Cases the Supreme Court is Considering Adopting in Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez,” Journal of the Florida Justice Association, May/June 2020.
Gray Proctor, “Old Rule, Partially Retroactive, and No Remedy: Why Hurst Won’t Help Many on Florida’s Death Row,” 28 FED. SENT. R. 5 (2016).
Gray Proctor and Nancy King, “Post-Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts,” 23 FED. SENT. R. 239 (2010).
Gray Proctor, “Ngo Excuses: Proving, Rebutting, and Excusing Exhaustion in Prisoner Suits after Woodford v. Ngo and Jones v. Bock,” 31 HAMLINE L. REV. 471 (2008).
Gray Proctor, “The New Role of Federal Habeas Courts in Guaranteeing the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel,” Florida Bar Journal June 2015.
Gray Proctor, “What State Criminal Practitioners Should Know About Federal Habeas Corpus,” The Record (Journal of the Appellate Practice Section Summer 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Hurst v. Florida: Retroactivity Doctrine Allows Florida to Ignore the Constitution,” Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter (February 10, 2016)
Gray Proctor, “Retroactivity and the Uncertain Application of Johnson v. United States: Is the Rule ‘Constitutional’ on Post-Conviction Review?” Bloomberg BNA Criminal Law Reporter (July 1, 2015).
Gray Proctor, “Whiteside v. United States: Using 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Correct Serious Guidelines Errors Based on New Law,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (April 30, 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Christmas Comes Early in the Eleventh Circuit: Using Bryant and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 When Section 2255 is Inadequate to Challenge Illegally Enhanced Sentences,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (January 22, 2014).
Gray Proctor, “Attacking Aggravating Prior Convictions in Federal Habeas: Using Lackawanna and Daniels for . . . Practically Anything?,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (December 4, 2013).
Gray Proctor, “The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Chaidez v. United States: Averting a Flood of Padilla Litigation by Former Prisoners,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (May 22, 2013).
Gray Proctor, “Habeas Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after Martinez v. Ryan: Federalization and Forum Shopping for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims,” BNA Bloomberg Criminal Law Reporter (December 5, 2012).
Speaker and Panelist, “The ‘Solo Practitioner:’ Pro Se Litigants and Their Obstacles to Justice,” Fordham Law School, January 25, 2011.
“Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.”
“There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content.”
“It is true that disinterested writers bring a potential objectivity that aids the project. But often the disinterest is feigned in legal scholarship. Rather, we write because we are frustrated with the existing state of the law or policies. We feel we must write to shed light on the problem and offer suggested paths for improvement. This frustration or even hate for damaging policies usually catches our attention because we care deeply about the underlying topic. Follow this love, though not blindly. It is the tension—the love/hate—that may propel you to sustain a lifetime of scholarly pursuits despite obstacles.”