Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Duke Law (80)
- Boston University School of Law (29)
- Columbia Law School (20)
- UC Law SF (19)
- Brooklyn Law School (18)
-
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (9)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (7)
- Fordham Law School (6)
- Barry University School of Law (4)
- University of New Mexico (3)
- Western New England University School of Law (3)
- California Western School of Law (2)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (2)
- Brigham Young University Law School (1)
- Nova Southeastern University (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Jurisdiction (37)
- Federal government (21)
- Courts (16)
- Supreme Court (12)
- Civil procedure (8)
-
- Conflict of laws (8)
- United States (8)
- Constitutional law (7)
- International law (7)
- Federal jurisdiction (6)
- International courts (6)
- Sovereignty (6)
- State governments (6)
- Treaties (6)
- Government liability (5)
- Judicial power (5)
- Separation of powers (5)
- Actions and defenses (4)
- Choice of law (4)
- Customary international law (4)
- District courts (4)
- Due process (4)
- Federalism (4)
- Human rights (4)
- Civil rights (3)
- Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (3)
- Conflict of laws--Jurisdiction (3)
- Due process of law (3)
- Empirical (3)
- Federal courts (3)
Articles 61 - 90 of 205
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Federalism As A Constitutional Principle, Ernest A. Young
Federalism As A Constitutional Principle, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
This essay was given as the William Howard Taft Lecture in Constitutional Law in October, 2014. It addresses three questions: Why care about federalism? How does the Constitution protect federalism? and What does Federalism need to survive? I argue that federalism is worth caring about because it protects liberty and fosters pluralism. Observing that constitutional law has mostly shifted from a model of dual federalism to one of concurrent jurisdiction, I contend that the most effective protections for federalism focus on maintaining the political and procedural safeguards that limit national power. Finally, I conclude that although both judicial review and …
Modern-Day Nullification: Marijuana And The Persistence Of Federalism In An Age Of Overlapping Regulatory Jurisdiction, Ernest A. Young
Modern-Day Nullification: Marijuana And The Persistence Of Federalism In An Age Of Overlapping Regulatory Jurisdiction, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs
Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …
The New Habeas Corpus In Death Penalty Cases, Larry Yackle
The New Habeas Corpus In Death Penalty Cases, Larry Yackle
Faculty Scholarship
This article offers the first systematic examination of Chapter 154, United States Code, which establishes new statutory arrangements for cases in which state prisoners under sentence of death file federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their convictions or sentences. Chapter 154 was enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Yet its provisions were made applicable only in capital cases arising from states that established qualifying schemes for providing indigent death row prisoners with counsel in state postconviction proceedings. No state’s system for supplying lawyers in state court won approval and, in consequence, Chapter 154’s rules …
On The Effectiveness Of Private Security Guards On Board Merchant Ships Off The Coast Of Somalia -- Where Is The Piracy? What Are The Legal Ramifications?, Barry H. Dubner, Claudia Pastorius
On The Effectiveness Of Private Security Guards On Board Merchant Ships Off The Coast Of Somalia -- Where Is The Piracy? What Are The Legal Ramifications?, Barry H. Dubner, Claudia Pastorius
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Federal Banks And Federal Jurisdiction In The Progressive Era, Larry Yackle
Federal Banks And Federal Jurisdiction In The Progressive Era, Larry Yackle
Faculty Scholarship
This is a case study of the Supreme Court’s classic decision in Smith v. K.C. Title & Trust Co. A stockholder challenged the constitutionality of the Farm Loan Act of 1916, which authorized federal banks to issue tax-exempt bonds to raise funds for loans to farmers. The case is best known for its holding that a federal court could entertain the suit because it arose “under the Constitution” and for Justice Holmes’ argument, in dissent, that federal jurisdiction was not established because state law created the “cause of action.”
This study is the first to go beyond the jurisdictional issue …
The Puzzling Persistence Of Dual Federalism, Ernest A. Young
The Puzzling Persistence Of Dual Federalism, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
This essay began life as a response to Sotirios Barber’s essay (soon to be a book) entitled “Defending Dual Federalism: A Self-Defeating Act.” Professor Barber’s essay reflects a widespread tendency to associate any judicially-enforceable principle of federalism with the “dual federalism” regime that dominated our jurisprudence from the Founding down to the New Deal. That regime divided the world into separate and exclusive spheres of federal and state regulatory authority, and it tasked courts with defining and policing the boundary between them. “Dual federalism” largely died, however, in the judicial revolution of 1937, and it generally has not been revived …
Exit, Voice, And Loyalty As Federalism Strategies: Lessons From The Same-Sex Marriage Debate, Ernest A. Young
Exit, Voice, And Loyalty As Federalism Strategies: Lessons From The Same-Sex Marriage Debate, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Federalism, Treaty Implementation, And Political Process: Bond V. United States, Curtis A. Bradley
Federalism, Treaty Implementation, And Political Process: Bond V. United States, Curtis A. Bradley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Effectiveness Of International Adjudicators, Laurence R. Helfer
The Effectiveness Of International Adjudicators, Laurence R. Helfer
Faculty Scholarship
This chapter, in the Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, provides an overview of the burgeoning literature on the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals (ICs). It considers four dimensions of effectiveness that have engendered debates among scholars or received insufficient scrutiny. The first dimension, case-specific effectiveness, evaluates whether the litigants to a specific dispute change their behavior following an IC ruling, an issue closely linked to compliance with IC judgments. The second variant, erga omnes effectiveness, assesses whether IC decisions have systemic precedential effects that influence the behavior of all states subject to a tribunal’s jurisdiction. The third approach, embeddedness …
How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs
How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs
Faculty Scholarship
Personal jurisdiction is a mess, and only Congress can fix it. The field is a morass, filled with buzzwords of nebulous origin and application. Courts have sought a single doctrine that simultaneously guarantees convenience for plaintiffs, fairness for defendants, and legitimate authority for the tribunal. Caught between these goals, we've let each new fact pattern pull precedent in a different direction, robbing litigants of certainty and blunting the force of our substantive law.
Solving the problem starts with reframing it. Rather than ask where a case may be heard, we should ask who may hear it. If the parties are …
Selling State Borders, Joseph Blocher
Selling State Borders, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
Sovereign territory was bought and sold throughout much of American history, and there are good reasons to think that an interstate market for borders could help solve many contemporary economic and political problems. But no such market currently exists. Why not? And could an interstate market for sovereign territory help simplify border disputes, resolve state budget crises, respond to exogenous shocks like river accretion, and improve democratic responsiveness? Focusing on the sale of borders among American states, this Article offers constitutional, political, and ethical answers to the first question, and a qualified yes to the second.
The Problem Of Settlement Class Actions, Howard M. Erichson
The Problem Of Settlement Class Actions, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
This article argues that class actions should never be certified solely for purposes of settlement. Contrary to the widespread “settlement class action” practice that has emerged in recent decades, contrary to current case law permitting settlement class certification, and contrary to recent proposals that would extend and facilitate settlement class actions, this article contends that settlement class actions are ill-advised as a matter of litigation policy and illegitimate as a matter of judicial authority. This is not to say that disputes should not be resolved on a classwide basis, or that class actions should not be resolved by negotiated resolutions. …
Theorizing Forms For Social Enterprise, Dana Brakman Reiser
Theorizing Forms For Social Enterprise, Dana Brakman Reiser
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf
Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf
Faculty Scholarship
Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.
In a …
Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity
Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity
Faculty Scholarship
The International Criminal Court (the “ICC”), now one decade old, is still in the process of setting norms as to scope, jurisdiction, and other issues. One issue that has thus far defied resolution is a key issue of jurisdiction: the place of complementarity in deciding whether certain criminal issues impacting international standards or interests should be decided before the ICC or national tribunals. Although the Rome Statute crystallizes definitions of core international crimes that may be tried before the ICC, the process of determining whether to leave jurisdiction with the nation or allowing jurisdiction to the ICC continues to lack …
Reverse-Commandeering, Margaret Hu
Reverse-Commandeering, Margaret Hu
Faculty Scholarship
Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns. Thus, the reversibility of the anti-commandeering doctrine appears inherent in the reasoning offered by the Court for the doctrine’s creation and application. In this Article, I contend that reversing the anti-commandeering doctrine is appropriate in the context of contemporary immigration federalism laws. Specifically, I explore how an unconstitutional incursion into federal sovereignty can be seen in state immigration …
A New International Human Rights Court For West Africa: The Ecowas Community Court Of Justice, Karen J. Alter, Laurence R. Helfer, Jacqueline R. Mcallister
A New International Human Rights Court For West Africa: The Ecowas Community Court Of Justice, Karen J. Alter, Laurence R. Helfer, Jacqueline R. Mcallister
Faculty Scholarship
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) is an increasingly active and bold international adjudicator of human rights violations in West Africa. Since acquiring jurisdiction over human rights issues in 2005, the ECCJ has issued several path-breaking judgments, including against the Gambia for the torture of journalists, against Niger for condoning modern forms of slavery, and against Nigeria for failing to regulate the multinational oil companies that polluted the Niger Delta. This article explains why ECOWAS member states authorized the ECCJ to review human rights suits by individuals but did not allow private actors to complain about violations of regional …
Legitimacy And Lawmaking: A Tale Of Three International Courts, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter
Legitimacy And Lawmaking: A Tale Of Three International Courts, Laurence R. Helfer, Karen J. Alter
Faculty Scholarship
This article explores the relationship between the legitimacy of international courts and expansive judicial lawmaking. We compare lawmaking by three regional integration courts — the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ). These courts have similar jurisdictional grants and access rules, yet each has behaved in a strikingly different way when faced with opportunities to engage in expansive judicial lawmaking. The ECJ is the most activist, but its audacious legal doctrines have been assimilated as part of the court’s legitimate authority. The ATJ and ECOWAS have been more …
Protecting The Right Of Citizens To Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses, Paul D. Carrington
Protecting The Right Of Citizens To Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses, Paul D. Carrington
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs
Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs
Faculty Scholarship
The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.
If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.
Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …
A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young
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 …
Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy
Judging The Flood Of Litigation, Marin K. Levy
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has increasingly considered a particular kind of argument: that it should avoid reaching decisions that would “open the floodgates of litigation.” Despite its frequent invocation, there has been little scholarly exploration of what a floodgates argument truly means, and even less discussion of its normative basis. This Article addresses both subjects, demonstrating for the first time the scope and surprising variation of floodgates arguments, as well as uncovering their sometimes-shaky foundations. Relying on in-depth case studies from a wide array of issue areas, the Article shows that floodgates arguments primarily have been used to protect three institutions: …
The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, And The Problem Of Ex Ante Inadequacy, Howard M. Erichson
The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, And The Problem Of Ex Ante Inadequacy, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
These opening lines from Chevron's website of "facts about Chevron and Texaco in Ecuador" refer to the latest salvo in a long-running environmental dispute concerning a Texaco subsidiary's Ecuadorian oil-drilling activities. Chevron resisted enforcement in the United States of an Ecuadorian court's $18 billion judgment, and the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce the judgment against Chevron in various courts around the world. Chevron's account suggests that the plaintiffs' lawyers are engaged in improper forum-shopping. The plaintiffs'lawyers, according to Chevron, ought to pursue enforcement of the judgment in the United States.
A Research Agenda For Uncooperative Federalists, Ernest A. Young
A Research Agenda For Uncooperative Federalists, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Home-State Test For General Personal Jurisdiction, Howard M. Erichson
The Home-State Test For General Personal Jurisdiction, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
This article attempts to articulate the due process test for general in personam jurisdiction. It frames the question as what gives a state sufficiently plenary power over a person that the state may adjudicate claims against the person regardless of where the claims arose, and it answers that question in terms of a home-state relationship between the defendant and the forum state. Written for a roundtable on the upcoming Supreme Court case of DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, the article urges the Court to state the home-state test for general jurisdiction more clearly than it did two years ago in Goodyear …
Why The Supreme Court Should Give The Easy Answer To An Easy Question: A Response To Professors Childress, Neuborne, Sherry And Silberman, Howard M. Erichson
Why The Supreme Court Should Give The Easy Answer To An Easy Question: A Response To Professors Childress, Neuborne, Sherry And Silberman, Howard M. Erichson
Faculty Scholarship
This paper responds to arguments that the Supreme Court should sidestep the core questions of personal jurisdiction in DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman. It argues that general personal jurisdiction over a corporation should be limited to the corporation's home state. As a corollary of this point, an agency relationship between a parent and subsidiary does not justify attribution of contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction. The key to the analysis is understanding the fundamental difference between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction, and this distinction explains several of the disagreements between myself and other participants in this Roundtable.
Exhuming The “Diversity Explanation” Of The Eleventh Amendment, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Exhuming The “Diversity Explanation” Of The Eleventh Amendment, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
This essay, in a symposium honoring the scholarship of Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, explores the “diversity explanation” of the Eleventh Amendment that he had advanced in articles while he was a UC-Berkeley law professor. That explanation, contrary to existing Supreme Court doctrine that heavily constitutionalizes state sovereign immunity from suits by private parties and foreign countries, would view the Eleventh Amendment as having solely to do with federal courts’ constitutional jurisdiction and nothing to do with states’ sovereign immunity. The essay notes the cleanness of interpretation provided by the diversity explanation, in contrast with the convoluted nature of …
The Kiobel Presumption And Extraterritoriality, Sarah H. Cleveland
The Kiobel Presumption And Extraterritoriality, Sarah H. Cleveland
Faculty Scholarship
With its modem rebirth in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) held out a potentially transformative promise. By establishing a forum in the United States for a victim of torture that had occurred at the hands of a Paraguayan police inspector in Paraguay, the ATS offered to emancipate the state-centered Westphalian system from a narrow focus on territorial sovereignty, and move toward a more globalized community focused on the protection of universal values. The ATS recognized that modem human rights perpetrators, victims, and violations move easily across borders, and that transnational accountability for such violations is in the …
Letting The Perfect Become The Enemy Of The Good: The Relatedness Problem In Personal Jurisdiction, Robin Effron
Letting The Perfect Become The Enemy Of The Good: The Relatedness Problem In Personal Jurisdiction, Robin Effron
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.