Law Commons^™

Climate Change Litigation In The Federal Courts: Jurisdictional Lessons From California V. Bp, Gil Seinfeld

Michigan Law Review Online

On March 21 of this year, something unusual took place at a U.S. courthouse in San Francisco: a group of scientists and attorneys provided Federal District Judge William H. Alsup with a crash course in climate science. The five-hour tutorial was ordered by Judge Alsup in connection with a lawsuit that had been filed by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco (“the Cities”) against the world’s five largest producers of fossil fuels. The central issue in the case is whether the energy companies can be held liable for continuing to market fossil fuels long after they learned that such …

The Constitutional Right To Collateral Post-Conviction Review, Carlos Manuel Vázquez, Stephen I. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For years, the prevailing academic and judicial wisdom has held that, between them, Congress and the Supreme Court have rendered post- conviction habeas review all but a dead letter. But in its January 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court may have dramatically upended that understanding in holding—for the first time—that there are at least some cases in which the Constitution itself creates a right to collateral post-conviction review, i.e., cases in which a prisoner seeks to enforce retroactively a “new rule” of substantive constitutional law under the familiar doctrine of Teague v. Lane.

On the …

Revising Our “Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal And State Courts In Our Federal System, Judith Resnik

Notre Dame Law Review

This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation. The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twentieth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since …

When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …

The Jurisprudence Of Union, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does important, independent work in the law of vertical federalism. We have long been accustomed to treating union as a constitutionally operative value in cases involving the duties states owe one another (i.e. horizontal federalism cases), but in cases involving the relationship between the federal government and the states, the interest in union is routinely ignored. This Article shows that, across a wide range of cases relating to the allocation of power between the federal government and the states, the states are constrained by a …

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 …

The S&P Litigation And Access To Federal Court: A Case Study In The Limits Of Our Removal Model, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On June 6, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of fifteen actions filed by state attorneys general against the Standard & Poor’s rating agency for its role in the collapse of the market for structured finance securities. The cases are important: The underlying events shook markets worldwide and contributed to a global recession, the legal actions themselves take aim at foundational aspects of the way rating agencies go about their business, and the suits threaten the imposition of significant fines and penalties against S&P. So it is unsurprising that the order of the MDL …

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 …

De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan

Michigan Law Review

Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …

The Constitutionality Of Federal Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation And The History Of State Judicial Selection And Tenure, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Few questions in the field of Federal Courts have captivated scholars like the question of whether Congress can simultaneously divest both lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims and thereby leave those claims to be litigated in state courts alone. Such a divestiture is known today as “jurisdiction stripping,” and, despite literally decades of scholarship on the subject, scholars have largely been unable to reconcile two widely held views: jurisdiction stripping should be unconstitutional because it deprives constitutional rights of adjudication by independent judges and jurisdiction stripping is nonetheless perfectly consistent with …

Crow Dog Vs. Spotted Tail: Case Closed, Timothy Connors, Vivek Sankaran

Articles

In 1868, Chief Spotted Tail signed a United States government treaty with an X. Spotted Tail was a member of the Brule Sioux Tribe, related by marriage to Crazy Horse. The government treaty recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux reservation. As such, exclusive use of the Black Hills by the Sioux people was guaranteed. Monroe, Michigan, native Gen. George Custer changed all that. In 1874, he led an expedition into that protected land, announced the discovery of gold, and the rush of prospectors followed. Within two years, Custer attacked at Little Big Horn and met his …

Slides: Indian Water Rights, Robert T. Anderson

Western Water Law, Policy and Management: Ripples, Currents, and New Channels for Inquiry (Martz Summer Conference, June 3-5)

Presenter: Robert T. Anderson, Native American Law Center, University of Washington Law School

19 slides

Another Voice For The 'Dialogue': Federal Courts As A Litigation Course, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

The traditional course in "Federal Courts" - built on the model established by the great Hart and Wechsler casebook - focuses on issues of federalism, separation of powers, and institutional competence. That focus provides a powerful intellectual model for organizing the materials that make up the field of study, and it is hard to imagine anyone teaching a Federal Courts course today without drawing heavily on that model. But the traditional model is deficient in one important respect. Most of the students who take a Federal Courts course do so because they think it will help them to practice law …

Slavery, Federalism, And The Constitution: Ableman V. Booth And The Struggle Over Fugitive Slaves , Earl M. Maltz

Cleveland State Law Review

The Article will discuss and analyze the forces that shaped Ableman v. Booth, one of the most dramatic confrontations in the long-running dispute over fugitive slaves, the Supreme Court's disposition of the case, and the aftermath of the decision. The Article will begin by describing the state of the dispute over fugitive slaves in the mid-1850s. The Article will then recount the events that brought Ableman to the Supreme Court and analyze the Court's opinion. Finally, the Article will discuss the aftermath and significance of the dispute.

Removal And The Eleventh Amendment: The Case For District Court Remand Discretion To Avoid A Bifurcated Suit, Mitchell N. Berman

Michigan Law Review

This Note concludes that the Sixth Circuit was half right: when a civil action names both state and private defendants - what this Note terms a "mixed case" - and when the claims against private defendants arise under federal law, the district court must grant removal of the case8 and must remand the claims against the state defendant. However, this Note also observes that the Fifth Circuit probably achieved the better result. After defendants have removed a mixed case to federal court and the district court has remanded the barred claims, the dual court systems and the parties will usually …

Pathfinder: Tribal, Federal, And State Court Subject Matter Jurisdictional Bounds: Suits Involving Native American Interests, John W. Gillingham

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State Of New York's State Federal-Judicial Council, Hon. George C. Pratt

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …

Agenda: The Federal Impact On State Water Rights, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

The Federal Impact on State Water Rights (Summer Conference, June 11-13)

Conference organizers and/or speakers included University of Colorado School of Law professors James N. Corbridge, Jr., David H. Getches, Lawrence J. MacDonnell and Richard B. Collins.

In general, water rights are a matter of state law. However, the availability and development of water are affected by important federal rights, policies and programs. In this conference, an outstanding group of private practitioners, government representatives and academics consider this important topic.

The War On Diversity, John W. Reed

Other Publications

Over the past decade or more there have been strong pressures to abolish the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. With the strong backing of the prestigious American Law Institute and many scholars, and with the support of the Chief Justice, Senator Kennedy, and others, specific proposals have been introduced in Congress, have been discussed at enormous length, and have passed one or the other House but not both. At the moment, therefore, we still have diversity jurisdiction, and it is safe to predict that abolition of diversity will not occur during the present session of Congress. Nevertheless, the long-term …

Service Of Process And Execution Of Judgement On Indian Reservations, Robert Laurence

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Children: An Analysis Of Cases Decided Pursuant To The Indian Child Welfare Act Of 1978, Therese Buthod

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Jurisdiction: Double Jeopardy In Indian Country, Larry Alan Burns

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adjudication Of Federal Causes Of Action In State Court, Martin H. Redish, John E. Muench

Michigan Law Review

The first section of this article considers the power of state courts to hear federal cases. Since it is now well established that state courts have the constitutional power to adjudicate federal causes of action if Congress so desires, the significant questions concern the method by which the judiciary is to decipher congressional intent. Although the courts have no difficulty where Congress has explicitly addressed the issue of state court jurisdiction, problems do arise in situations where Congress has remained silent on the question. The first section critically examines the traditional criteria employed by the courts for determining congressional intent …

Judicial Review In Local Government Law: A Reappraisal, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers

Publications

No abstract provided.

Substantive Interests And The Jurisdiction Of State Courts, Paul D. Carrington, James A. Martin

Michigan Law Review

Pennoyer indeed is dead. The primitive ritual of service of process could not survive as a general solution to the problem of state power over individuals. Committed as we are to the idea that the judicial power should be exercised in a manner that is responsive to the common welfare, we could not suffer the limits of power to be determined irrationally by the random success of process servers. Offering only the virtues of simplicity and economy, the ritualistic method had to yield in order to make the judicial power a sharper and more effective tool with which to pursue …

Federal Jurisdiction In Diversity And Related Cases, W. J. Wagner

Cleveland State Law Review

An important group of cases over which the inferior federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction consists of those in which the parties are "citizens of different States." Theoretically, it cannot be doubted that controversies "arising under" federal law are proper for adjudication in federal courts, while the necessity of extending the federal judicial power to diversity cases is not readily apparent.

Federal Jurisdiction In Diversity And Related Cases, Wencelas J. Wagner

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Of United States District Courts In Multiple-Claim Cases, Thomas F. Green Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jurisdictional problem peculiar to a case which involves more than one claim is: Shall the court entertain the entire action when it would have jurisdiction of one or more of the claims, but not all, if they were sued separately?' The application of this question to the United States district courts raises conflicting considerations. On the one hand is the fact that most of the claims which would not be within federal jurisdiction if sued alone, present questions of state rather than federal law. In general the more appropriate tribunals to deal with such questions in the first instance …