Digital Commons Network^™

Congress, The Courts, And Party Polarization: Why Congress Rarely Checks The President And Why The Courts Should Not Take Congress’S Place, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

When Can A State Sue The United States?, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

State suits against the federal government are on the rise. From Massachusetts’ challenge to federal environmental policy, to Oregon’s confrontation over physician-assisted suicide, to Texas’s suit over the Obama administration’s immigration program, States increasingly go to court to express their disagreement with federal policy. This Article offers a new theory of state standing that seeks to explain when a State may sue the United States. I argue that States have broad standing to sue the federal government to protect state law. Accordingly, a State may challenge federal statutes or regulations that preempt, or otherwise undermine the continued enforceability of, state …

Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove

Tara L. Grove

A new brand of plaintiff has come to federal court. In cases involving the Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and partisan gerrymandering, government institutions have brought suit to redress “institutional injuries”—that is, claims of harm to their constitutional powers or duties. Jurists and scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about these lawsuits, arguing (for example) that the Senate should have standing to protect its power to ratify treaties; that the House of Representatives may sue to preserve its role in the appropriations process; and that the President may go to court to vindicate his Article II prerogatives. This Article …

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Katherine Mims Crocker

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

Executive Action And Nonaction, Tom Campbell

Tom Campbell

Brief Of Restitution And Remedies Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent: Spokeo V. Robins, Doug Rendleman, Douglas Laycock, Mark P. Gergen

Mark P. Gergen

Both consumer protection and restitution may be casualties in a collision with the constitutional law of standing. Spokeo collects information from the internet and publishes it; however, Spokeo neither verifies the facts nor confirms which same-named person it refers to. Robins alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by disseminating false information about him. He seeks class certification and up to $1,000 in statutory minimum damages instead of compensatory damages. Spokeo argues that Robins lacks standing because he suffered no “injury in fact,” no “concrete harm.” Statutory minimum recoveries for defendants’ violations of plaintiffs’ individual rights without proof …

The Impact Of “Standing” Is Anything But Boring, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Restitution And Remedies Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent: Spokeo V. Robins, Doug Rendleman, Douglas Laycock, Mark P. Gergen

Doug Rendleman

Both consumer protection and restitution may be casualties in a collision with the constitutional law of standing. Spokeo collects information from the internet and publishes it; however, Spokeo neither verifies the facts nor confirms which same-named person it refers to. Robins alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by disseminating false information about him. He seeks class certification and up to $1,000 in statutory minimum damages instead of compensatory damages. Spokeo argues that Robins lacks standing because he suffered no “injury in fact,” no “concrete harm.” Statutory minimum recoveries for defendants’ violations of plaintiffs’ individual rights without proof …

Unchecked Political Question Doctrine: Judicial Ethics At The Dawn Of A Second Nuclear Arms Race, Daniel T. Rust

Daniel T Rust

This paper examines The Republic of the Marshall Islands v. The United States of America et al., the grounds for its dismissal, and recommendations for how it should be appealed and ultimately judged. The Marshall Islands sued alleging noncompliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. At issue are concepts of legality and ethics behind the “Political Question Doctrine” defense that the United States provides, in addition to whether or not the Marshall Islands has standing. When noncompliance with a valid, legal treaty causes real harm, Political Question Doctrine should not be allowed to the …

Standing Room Only: Why Fourth Amendment Exclusion And Standing Can No Longer Logically Coexist, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Hougang By-Election Case: What Court Decision On By-Election Reveals, Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Jack Tsen-Ta LEE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s judgment in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2013] SGCA 39 – popularly known as the Hougang by-election case – shows that the Court sees its role as policing the margins rather than involving itself in the heart of politics. The Court held that the Government was incorrect in asserting the Constitution confers on it the discretion not to hold a by-election at all after a parliamentary seat falls vacant. The judgment came as a surprise to those used to a judicial stance fairly deferential towards the Government, but on balance the Court did accord …

Cool Lawsuits: Is Climate Change Litigation Dead After Kivalina V. Exxonmobil?, Mark L. Belleville

Mark L. Belleville

Can emitters of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) ever be held liable for harms caused by climate change? That is the limited question this Article addresses. While many commentators saw the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (“Mass. v. EPA”) as an indication that such claims may receive favorable review, recent decisions suggest that there may be no theory under which the ExxonMobils of the world can be held liable for the effects of climate change. Specifically, in September 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a native Alaskan village on the tip of a barrier reef, whose …

Teaching U.S. V. Windsor: The Defense Of Marriage Act And Its Constitutional Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Students are captivated by contemporary, high-profile Supreme Court cases. They recognize the litigants featured on the news, they debate the public policy, sociological and other real world implications of the arguments in school and their peers and parents prod them to discuss their opinions outside of class. I incorporate very recent and noteworthy Supreme Court cases in my legal studies courses with great success. My students are more engaged and prepared than when I assign a textbook chapter (students would rather track the law as it develops in real time). They tend to recall the arguments and legal theories well …

Teaching The U.S. V. Windsor Same Sex Marriage/Equal Protection/Doma Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The same sex marriage cases are proving to be the hottest of topics during a very eventful Supreme Court term. The U.S. v. Windsor case is a fitting vehicle to cover the topic. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) equal protection, (2) federalism, (3) executive discretion to defend federal laws, (4) incorporation and more.

Article Iii: Cases & Controversies - Teaching The Already V. Nike Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Nike is the market leader selling athletic shoes worldwide. Already markets its products to a smaller segment of the athletic shoe market. These two companies battled at the intersection of the intellectual property, federal court jurisdiction and constitutional law. These slides help teach the Already v. Nike Supreme Court case. These slides cover issues such as Article III cases & controversies, intellectual property rights in trademarks and patents as well as mootness and standing doctrines.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2013: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

This is another in a series of articles on developments in the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers the cases decided in 2012 and early 2013. The article begins with the cases that illustrate the concept that criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence in a criminal case. It then takes the reader more or less chronologically through the litigation of a case, beginning with the seizure and restraint of the property and continuing through the trial and sentencing of the defendant and the adjudication of third-party issues in the post-trial ancillary proceeding. Except in …

Brief Of Reporter And Advisers To Restatement (Third) Restitution And Unjust Enrichment, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Doug Rendleman, Douglas Laycock

Doug Rendleman

Restitution may be a casualty in a collision with the constitutional law of standing. Article III is traditionally said to require an “injury in fact” for standing to be a plaintiff in federal court. Edwards, who alleges that First American paid a bribe or kickback in violation of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, seeks to recover the statutory penalty. Defendant argues that even if it violated the Act, Edwards suffered no “injury in fact.” Our amicus brief in support of Edwards alerts the Supreme Court to the many restitutionary claims either for a wrongdoer’s profits or to set …

Legal Standing For Animals And Advocates, David N. Cassuto

David N Cassuto

For animal advocates, one of the most significant barriers to the courtroom is standing. In order to litigate on behalf of an animal's interests in federal court, the advocate must first establish standing by meeting three requirements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, (2) the injury must be causally connected to the act about which the plaintiff is complaining, and (3) the court must be able to redress the injury. When it comes to non-human animals, how does an advocate demonstrate an injury to establish standing? In this panel, experts in animal litigation discuss the concept …

Standing On Holy Ground: How Rethinking Justiciability Might Bring Peace To The Establishment Clause, John M. Bickers

John M. Bickers

The Establishment Clause is home to both procedural and substantive disorder. Particularly in evaluating religious speech by the government, the Supreme Court applies any of a number of distinct tests, with varying degrees of strictness. At the same time, the Court has articulated a series of requirements necessary for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge government action, only to ignore them in government religious speech cases. The resulting lack of clarity leaves lower courts to their own devices in endeavoring to calm increasingly intense struggles. This article sets out a theory that altering one of these problems can correct …

Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …