Law Commons^™

Ford V. Where Are We?: The Revival Of The Sliding Scale To Govern The Supreme Court's New "Relating To" Personal Jurisdiction, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review

This Note proposes a test to govern “relating to” specific jurisdiction, a variation on a theme to those familiar with the doctrine: a “sliding scale” approach to contacts and relatedness, accompanied by a separate assessment of reasonableness factors the Supreme Court has outlined in previous cases to serve as a check on the sliding scale. Part I of this Note explains the “sliding scale” approach, its unpleasant first interaction with the Court, and its revival by the Ford majority. Part II defines this Note’s proposed test and demonstrates its consistency with Supreme Court precedent. Finally, Part III applies this Note’s …

Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple

William & Mary Law Review

Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …

The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review Online

Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …

Pereira's Aftershocks, Lonny Hoffman

William & Mary Law Review

At the end of the 2017 term, the Supreme Court decided not to stop time. Nonpermanent residents who have been placed in removal proceedings may apply for a discretionary form of relief from the Attorney General known as “cancellation of removal.” To be eligible, an applicant must show (in addition to meeting other requirements) that she has been in the United States for at least ten consecutive years. The period of continuous physical presence is interrupted when the government serves the noncitizen with a notice to appear at a removal hearing. However, in Pereira v. Sessions, the Court held that …

Jurisdiction And "Definitional Law", John F. Preis

William & Mary Law Review Online

Professor Scott Dodson and I agree that the law of federal jurisdiction needs improvement. We disagree, however, on Congress’s power to make that happen. In an article published in 2017, Dodson argued that “jurisdiction” has an “inherent identity” that “[n]either Congress nor the courts can change.” In an article published the following year, I critiqued this claim. There, I argued that Congress is not obliged to respect jurisdiction’s inherent identity (to the extent it might have one). Rather, Congress need only respect the identity of jurisdiction contained in the United States Constitution. Professor Dodson recently published a rejoinder to my …

Why Rape Should Be A Federal Crime, Donald A. Dripps

William & Mary Law Review

Sexual assault remains at high levels despite decades of legal reforms. The recent wave of accusations against public figures signals both the persistence of the problem and a new political climate for addressing it. The Article argues that Congress should make forcible rape a federal crime, to the limits of the Commerce Clause. This would bring federal assets to the fight against rape by redirecting them from enforcement of possessory crimes. The simple statutory proposal might be accompanied by a more ambitious reorganization of the Justice Department to include a Bureau of Violent Crimes. Replies are offered to objections based …

Enforcing Principled Constitutional Limits On Federal Power: A Neo-Federalist Refinement Of Justice Cardozo's Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

Since the New Deal of the mid-1930s, Congress has asserted virtually absolute power to (1) “regulate Commerce ... among the States,” (2) tax and spend for the “general Welfare,” and (3) delegate “legislative Power[ ]” to the executive branch. From 1937 until 1994, the Supreme Court rejected every claim that such statutes had exceeded Congress’s Article I authority and usurped the states’ reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Over the past quarter century, conservative Justices have tried, and failed, to develop principled constitutional limits on the federal government while keeping the modern administrative and social welfare state largely intact.

The …

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Who’S Your Sovereign?: The Standing Doctrine Of Parens Patriae & State Lawsuits Defending Sanctuary Policies, Lexi Zerrillo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Federal–State Standing Gap: How To Enforce Federal Law In Federal Court Without Article Iii Standing, Peter N. Salib, David K. Suska

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

You, too, can sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause!

Since Inauguration Day, several lawsuits have been filed against President Trump because of his refusal to divest certain assets. They assert that Trump’s business interests conflict with the Emoluments Clause of Article I. That arcane provision forbids certain federal officials from accepting any perquisite or gain from a foreign monarch or state. The suits contend, for example, that a foreign dignitary’s booking of a room at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. would constitute an unlawful emolument.

Most commentators quickly threw cold water on the prospect of any plaintiff …

Defending Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

William & Mary Law Review Online

In an article entitled Jurisdiction and Its Effects, I argued that jurisdiction has inherent descriptive meaning but mutable effects. In response, Professor John Preis challenges my framework on a number of grounds and offers his own presumption-based approach. In this reply, I defend my original framework and register my own skepticism of his alternative approach.

Jurisdictional Idealism And Positivism, John F. Preis

William & Mary Law Review

“If I should call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs would it have? Four, because calling a tail a leg would not make it so.” This old quip, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, captures an issue at the heart of the modern law of subject matter jurisdiction. Some believe that there is a Platonic ideal of jurisdiction that cannot be changed by judicial or legislative fiat. Others take a positivist approach and assert that jurisdiction is nothing more than whatever a legislature says it is. Who is right?

Neither and both. Although neither idealism nor positivism is the …

The Long Arm Of Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt

William & Mary Law Review

Nearly 40 percent of the civil cases currently pending in federal court—now over 130,000—are part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. In MDL, all cases pending in federal district courts around the country sharing a common question of fact, such as the defectiveness of a product or drug, are transferred to a single district judge for consolidated pretrial proceedings, after which they are supposed to be remanded for trial. But the reality is that less than 3 percent are ever sent back because the cases are resolved in the MDL court, either through dispositive motion or mass settlement. Surprisingly, despite …

Dual Sovereignty Is Out, Time For Concurrent Jurisdiction To Shine, Scott Jacobson

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction Based On The Local Effects Of Intentional Misconduct, Allan Erbsen

William & Mary Law Review

Intentional misconduct frequently has extraterritorial consequences. Terrorist attacks, toxic pollution, civil rights violations, and other intentional torts can cause harm within a state despite originating outside the state. Those harms raise a vexing constitutional question: when do the local effects of intentional wrongdoing authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose conduct occurred outside the forum? The answer has several significant implications. Granting or denying jurisdiction can support or undermine regulatory interests by allocating power between states, imposes burdens on the parties that can impede access to justice, and alters risk assessments that shape both socially desirable and socially destructive behavior.

The Supreme Court’S Quiet Revolution: Redefining The Meaning Of Jurisdiction, Erin Morrow Hawley

William & Mary Law Review

Over the last three decades, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have carried out a quiet revolution in the nature and meaning of jurisdiction. Historically, federal courts generally treated procedural requirements, like filing deadlines and exhaustion prerequisites, as presumptively “jurisdictional.” In case after case, the modern Court has reversed course. The result has been an unobtrusive but seminal redefinition of what jurisdiction means to begin with: the adjudicatory authority of the federal courts. This shift is momentous, but it has been obscured by the Court’s erstwhile imposition of a clear statement requirement. For courts to find a statutory requirement jurisdictional, Congress …

The “Legal” Marijuana Industry’S Challenge For Business Entity Law, Luke Scheuer

William & Mary Business Law Review

In recent years, many states have legalized the use and sale of marijuana for medical or even recreational purposes. This has led to the booming growth of a “legal” marijuana industry. Businesses openly growing and selling marijuana products to the consuming public face some unusual legal hurdles. Significantly, although the sale of marijuana may be legal at the state level, it is still illegal under federal law. This Article explores the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws from a business entity law perspective. For example, managers owe a fiduciary duty of good faith to their businesses and equity holders. …

Ensuring Contractor Accountability Overseas: A Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Would Be Preferable To Expansion Of The False Claims Act, Rachel M. Kelly

William & Mary Business Law Review

This Note considers the advisability of amending the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions beyond instances of fraud to include criminal allegations against government contractors employed overseas. It considers the negative effects that result from qui tam actions in the fraud context and discusses alternatives for holding contractors accountable for crimes committed overseas that could avoid those negative effects. This Note particularly focuses on and recommends a civilian corollary to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act—the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. It discusses the benefits that the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act would provide such as increased judicial efficiency, increased prosecutorial flexibility, and …

Parens Patriae: A Flawed Strategy For State-Initiated Obesity Litigation, John B. Hoke

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Legal Globalization: The Case Of Transnational Personal Jurisdiction, Donald Earl Childress Iii

William & Mary Law Review

Under what circumstances may a United States court exercise personal jurisdiction over alien defendants? Courts and commentators have yet to offer a coherent response to this question. That is surprising given that scholars have been calling for the globalization of U.S. law since the late 1980s as part of a transnational litigation narrative.

Through doctrinal and empirical analysis, this Article argues that a U.S. court should have power to exercise personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant not served with process within a state’s borders when (1) the defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice, (2) the state has a constitutionally sufficient …

Can Erie Survive As Federal Common Law?, Craig Green

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

General Law In Federal Court, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Jurisprudence Doesn't Matter For Customary International Law, Steven Walt

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law's Dark Matter, Michael S. Green

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Untethered Norms After Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins: Positivism, International Law, And The Return Of The "Brooding Omnipresence", Lea Brilmayer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Critical Guide To Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Caleb Nelson

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Common Law Of Statutory Interpretation: Erie For The Age Of Statutes, Abbe R. Gluck

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jurisdictional Procedure, Justin Pidot

William & Mary Law Review

Scholars have lavished attention on the substance of jurisdictional doctrines such as standing, mootness, diversity, and federal question. They have left largely unexamined, however, the procedures courts use to address these doctrines; collectively, I refer to these procedures as “jurisdictional procedure.” A paramount feature of jurisdictional procedure is the unique and virtually unqualified obligation federal courts possess to identify and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction even if the parties and lower courts overlook these issues. Courts have reached no consensus about how to identify the facts necessary to effectuate this obligation. The confluence of court-initiated legal inquiry and unpredictable …

Erie, The Class Action Fairness Act, And Some Federalism Implications Of Diversity Jurisdiction, David Marcus

William & Mary Law Review

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) expands diversity jurisdiction to allow most significant class actions based on state law to proceed in federal court. Hoping to limit the application of state law through class actions, CAFA's supporters believe that federal judges harbor a collective animosity toward the large, multistate class actions the statute targets. CAFA has no substantive component, and it does not tighten Rule 23's certification requirements. Nonetheless, if supporters are right about judicial preferences and their likely impact on certification decisions, CAFA will weaken the regulatory reach of state law.

Arguments about diversity jurisdiction and judicial …

Congressional Striptease: How The Failure Of The 108th Congress's Jurisdiction Stripping Bills Were Used For Political Success, Laura Fellow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.