Digital Commons Network^™

“Nationwide” Injunctions Are Really “Universal” Injunctions And They Are Never Appropriate, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Federal district courts are routinely issuing broad injunctions prohibiting the federal government from enforcing constitutionally invalid laws, regulations, and policies on immigration and immigration-adjacent issues. Styled “nationwide injunctions,” they prohibit enforcement of the challenges laws not only against the named plaintiffs, but against all people and entities everywhere.

The first problem with these injunctions is one of nomenclature. “Nationwide” suggests something about the “where” of the injunction, the geographic scope in which it protects. The better term is “universal injunction,” which captures the real controversy over the “who” of the injunction, as courts purport to protect the universe of all …

Police Misconduct, Video Recording, And Procedural Barriers To Rights Enforcement, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The story of police reform and of "policing the police" has become the story of video and video evidence, and "record everything to know the truth" has become the singular mantra. Video, both police-created and citizen-created, has become the singular tool for ensuring police accountability, reforming law enforcement, and enforcing the rights of victims of police misconduct. This Article explores procedural problems surrounding the use of video recording and video evidence to counter police misconduct, hold individual officers and governments accountable, and reform departmental policies, regulations, and practices. It considers four issues: 1) the mistaken belief that video can "speak …

Video Evidence And Summary Judgment: The Procedure Of Scott V. Harris, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

In Scott v. Harris (2007), the Supreme Court granted summary judgment on a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim brought by a motorist injured when a pursuing law-enforcement officer terminated a high-speed pursuit by bumping the plaintiff's car. The Court relied almost exclusively on a video of the chase captured from the officer's dash-mounted camera and disregarded witness testimony that contradicted the video. In granting summary judgment in this circumstance, the Court fell sway to the myth of video evidence as able to speak for itself, as an objective, unambiguous, and singularly accurate depiction of real-world events, not subject to any interpretation …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …

The Process Of Marriage Equality, Josh Blackman, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court And The Civil Procedure Revival, Howard Merrill Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

In the six terms since John G. Roberts became Chief Justice in September 2005, the Supreme Court has decided numerous, significant, and potentially far-reaching cases on core civil procedure subjects, including pleading, summary judgment, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, class actions, and the Erie/Hanna Doctrine. This renewed interest in civil procedure and the Federal Rules is an important, but little-discussed, jurisprudential theme of the early years of the Roberts Court. This essay explores the Court’s emerging reengagement with civil procedure; it identifies several organizing themes in the recent cases and examines the existing ambivalence and hostility among the competing rulemaking …

Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, And The Ministerial Exemption, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Mixed Signals On Summary Judgment, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Moral Panics And Body Cameras, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This Commentary uses the lens of "moral panics" to evaluate public support for equipping law enforcement with body cameras as a response and solution to events in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014. Body cameras are a generally good policy idea. But the rhetoric surrounding them erroneously treats them as the single guaranteed solution to the problem of excessive force and police-citizen conflicts, particularly by ignoring the limitations of video evidence and the difficult questions of implementing any body camera program. In overstating the case, the rhetoric of body cameras becomes indistinguishable from rhetoric surrounding responses to past moral panics.

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Substantiality, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Fletcherian Standing, Merits, And Spokeo V. Robins, Howard Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This essay offers an exercise in wishful jurisdictional and procedural thinking. As part of a Supreme Court Roundtable on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it argues for William Fletcher's conception of standing as an inquiry into the substantive merits of a claim and of whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. This approach is especially necessary in statutory cases; along with its constitutional power to create new rights, duties, and remedies, Congress should have a free hand in deciding who and how those rights and duties should be enforced. Spokeo, which involves a claim for damages for publication of …

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Non-Extant Rights, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Epilogue: Moral Panics And Body Cameras, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This brief follow-up to Moral Panics and Body Cameras comments on the weeks after that essay was published and what those events show about the efficacy of body cameras and video evidence as a response to police-public conflicts.

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Procedure: Thoughts On Dodson's Trichotomy, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Catalyzing Fans, Howard Wasserman, Dan Markel, Michael Mccann

Howard M Wasserman

This paper proposes the development of Fan Action Committees (“FACs”), which, like their political counterpart ("PACs"), could mobilize and empower fans to play a larger role in the decision-making associated with which “production teams” the talent will work. We outline two institutional options: FACs could directly compensate talent by crowdfunding, or they could make donations to charities favored by talent. We then discuss both obstacles and objections from a variety of policy and legal perspectives ranging from competitive balance to distributive justice. Finally, we consider possible extensions of the FAC model as well as offer some ruminations on why FACs …

Crazy In Alabama: Judicial Process And The Last Stand Against Marriage Equality In The Land Of George Wallace, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In hindsight, the decision seems inevitable, the culmination of a precisely two-year race towards marriage equality that began with the Court’s 2013 invalidation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on June 26, 2013. Federal trial and appellate courts were almost uniform in declaring state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari or stays of judgment in all of those cases. Additionally, high-ranking public officials in several states gave up their …

Continuity Of Congress: A Play In Three Stages, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

A Jurisdictional Perspective On New York Times V. Sullivan, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

New York Times v. Sullivan, arguably the Supreme Court's most significant First Amendment decision, marks its fiftieth anniversary next year. Often overlooked in discussions of the case's impact on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that it arose from a complex puzzle of constitutional, statutory, and judge-made jurisdictional and procedural rules. These kept the case in hostile Alabama state courts for four years and a half-million-dollar judgment before the Times and its civil rights leader co-defendants finally could avail themselves of the structural protections of federal court and Article III judges. The case's outcome and the …

Just A Bit Aside: Perverse Incentives, Cost-Benefit Imbalances, And The Infield Fly Rule, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Holmes And Brennan, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Civil Rights Plaintiffs And John Doe Defendants: A Study In § 1983 Procedure, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

What’S Good For General Motors: Corporate Speech And The Theory Of Free Expression, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Iqbal, Procedural Mismatches, And Civil Rights Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

Understanding the twin pleading cases of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal from the vantage point of only a few months (or even years) requires as much prediction as explanation. Early confusion is a product of the long-heralded link between substance and procedure. What we are seeing now may be less about Court-imposed changes to procedure as about changes to substantive law and a "mismatch " between new substance and the old procedure of the Federal Rules. Much of the current business of federal courts involves constitutional litigation under 42 U.S. C. §S 1983 and Bivens, a …

Orwell’S Vision: Video And The Future Of Civil Rights Enforcement, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Cheers, Profanity, And Free Speech, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Compelled Expression And The Public Forum Doctrine, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This Article analyzes the theory underlying the Fist Amendment protection against being compelled by government to utter, present, or fund unwanted expression. The author creates a three-part model for determining when the fire speech rights of an objecting payer have been triggered. Under that model, First Amendment rights are implicated when there has been an actual government compulsion requiring an individual to give money to, or for the express benefit of, a specific private speaker for some use that, in itself, should be understood as expressive. This model strikes a necessary balance between the important theoretical underpinnings of the protection …

A Jurisdictional Perspective On New York Times V. Sullivan, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Bartnicki As Lochner: Some Thoughts On First Amendment Lochnerism, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.