Digital Commons Network^™

Medtronic V. Boston Scientific: Allocating The Burden Of Proof In Declaratory Judgment Actions For Patent Non-Infringement, Brianna Strange

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, in which the Court will decide which party bears the burden of proof in a declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement.

At Home In The Outer Limits: Daimlerchrysler V. Bauman And The Bounds Of General Personal Jurisdiction, Todd W. Noelle

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, DaimlerChrysler v. Bauman, in which the Court may decide whether maintaining a wholly-owned subsidiary in a forum state can render a foreign parent corporation "essentially at home" in that state, thereby permitting the forum state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the parent corporation.

Atlantic Marine V. J-Crew: The Future Of Forum-Selection Clauses In Federal Courts, Sarah Sheridan

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Atlantic Marine v. J-Crew, in which the Court may clarify a circuit split regarding the enforceability of forum-selection clauses by deciding which procedure should govern the enforcement of these clauses and which party carries the burden of proof in these disputes.

The Right To “Do Politics” And Not Just To Speak: Thinking About The Constitutional Protections For Political Action, Robert F. Bauer

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Interning Dissent: The Law Of Large Political Events, Aaron Johnson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Journal Staff

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

Abstract required.

Fraud On The Market After Amgen, James D. Cox

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Fisher V. University Of Texas: Who Put The Holes In “Holistic”?, Rodney A. Smolla

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Five Justices, Section 4, And Three Ways Forward In Voting Rights, Kareem Crayton, Jane Junn

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Citizenship And The Law Of Time In The United States, Elizabeth F. Cohen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Delegating Away The Unitary Executive: Reviewing Ina § 287(G) Agreements Through The Lens Of The Unitary Executive Theory, Matthew A. Smith

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

The Forgotten Equality Norm In Immigration Preemption: Discrimination, Harassment, And The Civil Rights Act Of 1870, Lucas Guttentag

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Foreword

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Immigration Structuralism: A Return To Form, David S. Rubenstein

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Justifying Power: Federalism, Immigration, And ‘Foreign Affairs’, Erin F. Delaney

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act's Fight To Stay Rational: Shelby County V. Holder, Sudeep Paul

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court may decide whether Congress's 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was constitutional.

Maryland V. King: The Fourth Amendment Spirals Down The Double Helix, Sitara V. Witanachchi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Maryland v. King, in which the Court may decide whether requiring an arrestee to submit to a buccal swab for identification purposes violates the arrestee's privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.

Hollingsworth V. Perry: Expressive Harm And The Stakes Of "Marriage", Corinne Blalock

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Court may decide whether Proposition 8 violates either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Patent Exhaustion And The Federal Circuit’S Deviant Conditional Sale Doctrine: Bowman V. Monsanto, Adam Garmezy

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Mcburney V. Young: Testing The Limits Of Citizens-Only Freedom Of Information Laws, Patrick Jamieson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, McBurney v. Young, in which the Court will decide whether the citizens-only provision of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commmerce Clause.

Materiality Immaterial? Revisiting Standards For Securities Fraud Class Certification In Amgen V. Connecticut Retirement Plans And Trust Funds, Nancy My Nguyen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, in which the Court will decide whether plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions must prove materiality at the class certification stage, or if that inquiry is more appropriately left to later stages of litigation. The case requires the Court to resolve a circuit split on this issue, and will have far-reaching implications for the future of securities fraud litigation.

In All Fairness: Us Airways V. Mccutchen And The Use Of Equitable Defenses In Erisa Reimbursement Claims, Ravi Patel

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, US Airways v. McCutchen, in which the Court will decide whether courts are permitted to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language for benefit plans under ERISA. In so doing, the Court must decide whether to give effect to the Third Circuit's holding, that ERISA does permit this use of equitable principles, which runs contrary to the majority of circuits.

Determining Rights To Resell: Kirtsaeng V. John Wiley & Sons, Sandra Yoo

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Court will decide whether the "first sale" doctrine applies to foreign-made copies. Broadly, the case will determine the ability of manufacturers to control the distribution of foreign-made copies once they have been sold and asks the Court to resolve a circuit split on the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act.

The Prying Nose: Florida V. Jardines And Warrantless Dog-Sniff Tests On Private Property, Ali Mirsaidi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Florida v. Jardines, in which the Court will decide whether a dog-sniff test at the front door of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The case asks the Court to resolve its prior decisions holding that dog-sniff tests are minimally intrusive when conducted in public with its decisions affording higher protections for searches of private residences.

Clapper V. Amnesty International: Who Has Standing To Challenge Government Surveillance?, Elisa Sielski

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, in which the Court will examine whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge possible government surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In so doing, the Court will have to revisit the standards for standing in surveillance cases in light of Laird v. Tatum and a circuit split stemming from that case.

Evans V. Michigan: The Impact Of Judicial Error On Double Jeopardy Protection, Zi-Xiang Shen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Evans v. Michigan, in which the Court has an opportunity to clarify the bounds of the prohibition on double jeopardy. More specifically, the Court will determine what, if any, impact judicial error has on double jeopardy protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Take The Money And Run: Detainment Incident To A Search Warrant In Bailey V. United States, Alexander Hall

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Bailey v. United States, in which the Court will examine the scope of permissible non-arrest seizures in the context of a detainment incident to a search warrant. The case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify its holding in Michigan v. Summers--that occupants of premises being searched pursuant to a valid warrant may be detained during the search--by determining whether such a detainment is permissible when the occupants have left the premises.

Collective Action Federalism And Its Discontents, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

An increasing number of scholars argue that the Commerce Clause is best read in light of the collective action problems that the nation faced under the Articles of Confederation. The work of these “collective action theorists” is reflected in Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Writing for four Justices, she stressed the “collective-action impasse” at the state level to which the Affordable Care Act responds.

In its purest form, a collective action approach maintains that the existence of a significant problem of collective action facing two or more states is both necessary and sufficient …

A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …

A Research Agenda For Uncooperative Federalists, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.