Digital Commons Network^™

Foreign States Are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons Under The Due Process Clause, Frederick W. Vaughan

Georgia Law Review

If foreign states are not "persons"under the Due Process
Clause, do foreign state-owned corporations still enjoy the
same protections as their privately owned counterparts?
This is an important question because state-owned entities
are a prevalent fixture in an increasingly global economy.
Courts confronted with the issue, however, have attempted
to resolve it by resorting to a policy-based analysis. In
doing so, they have distorted fundamental constitutional
principles.
This Note explains this distortion by discussing the
trend among leading courts of not recognizing states as
"persons" under the Due Process Clause and by examining
the meaning of "foreign state" under the …

What Mcdonald Means For Unenumerated Rights, A. Christopher Bryant

Georgia Law Review

In June a splintered Supreme Court held in McDonald
v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment applied to
state and local governments. But the case was about

much more than handguns. It presented the Court with
an unprecedented opportunity to correct its own erroneous
precedent and revive the Fourteenth Amendment's
Privileges or Immunities Clause. The plurality declined
the offer not, as Justice Alito's opinion suggested, out of a
profound respect for stare decisis, but rather because at
least four Justices like the consequences of that ancient
error, especially insofar as unenumerated rights are
concerned. This observation in turn raises …

Grossly Disproportional To Whose Offense? Why The (Mis)Application Of Constitutional Jurisprudence On Proceeds Forfeiture Matters, Amanda S. Bersinger

Georgia Law Review

To pass constitutional muster, fines-of which punitive
forfeitures are one type-must not be grossly
disproportional to the gravity of the offense from which
they arise. Currently, the United States Courts of Appeals
exhibit a split in their treatment of forfeiture of proceeds
acquired incident to a criminal enterprise. A majority of
courts to address the issue have held that proceeds
forfeitures are not punitive fines and thus escape
constitutional scrutiny. Other courts, including the
Fourth Circuit in the recent case United States v.
Jalaram, Inc., have concluded that proceeds forfeiture, like

that of instrumentalities of a crime, is punitive and …

Extra! Read All About It: Why Notice By Newspaper Publication Fails To Meet Mullane's Desire-To-Inform Standard And How Modern Technology Provides A Viable Alternative, Jennifer L. Case

Georgia Law Review

Decades ago the Supreme Court articulated that due
process requires adopting a means of service that one
would naturally adopt if he actually desired to inform
another. For generations newspaper publication has been
allowed where the party to be notified is not known or
cannot be located. But, given the rapid transformation

of information dissemination over our country's recent
history, are newspapers a method that anyone would use if
they truly wanted to relay information to another person?
This Note examines the shift in how American's receive
news and information in our modern society. It explores
the decline in newspaper …

Imprisoned By Liability: Why Bivens Suits Should Not Be Available Against Employees Of Privately Run Federal Prisons, Isabella R. Edmundson

Georgia Law Review

With the increasing privatization of prisons, a growing
issue is whether individual employees in private federal
prisons are liable through a Bivens suit for violating the
constitutional rights of inmates. Four circuits have
confronted the issue. Three circuits have held that no
Bivens action is available; but recently the Ninth Circuit
has held the contrary.
The Supreme Court's Bivens case law offers mixed
messages as to whether an implied cause of action should
be available in this situation. One view is that, despite an
initial willingness to expand Bivens, the Supreme Court
has consistently moved away from recognizing new Bivens …

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Georgia Law Review

The Third Branch of our federal government has
traditionally been viewed as the least of the three in
terms of the scope of its power and authority. This
view finds validation when one considers the
extensive authority that Congress has been permitted
to exercise over the Federal Judiciary. From the
beginning, Congress has understood itself to possess
the authority to limit the jurisdiction of inferior
federal courts. The Supreme Court has acquiesced to
this understanding of congressional authority
without much thought or explanation.
It may be possible, however, to imagine a more
robust vision of the Judicial Power through closer …