Law Commons^™

Brief Amici Curiae On Behalf Of International And Constitutional Law Experts In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Al Bahlul V. United States , 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (En Banc), Robert D. Sloane, Foley Hoag Llp

Faculty Scholarship

Amici curiae, legal experts in international and constitutional law, believe that a majority of the en banc panel in Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc), mistakenly affirmed Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s conviction by a military commission for a non-international war crime. The main concurring opinion in that case misconceived how international law defines the jurisdiction of law-of-war military commissions. As amici argue below, it is the Constitution—not international law—that limits the jurisdiction of lawof-war military commissions.

Searching Places Unknown: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction On The Dark Web, Ahmed Ghappour

Faculty Scholarship

The use of hacking tools by law enforcement to pursue criminal suspects who have anonymized their communications on the dark web presents a looming flashpoint between criminal procedure and international law. Criminal actors who use the dark web (for instance, to commit crimes or to evade authorities) obscure digital footprints left behind with third parties, rendering existing surveillance methods obsolete. In response, law enforcement has implemented hacking techniques that deploy surveillance software over the Internet to directly access and control criminals’ devices. The practical reality of the underlying technologies makes it inevitable that foreign-located computers will be subject to remote …

Corporate Criminal Responsibility For Human Rights Violations: Jurisdiction And Reparations, Kenneth S. Gallant

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae, Bnsf Railway Co. V. Tyrrell, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

[This brief was filed in support of the petitioner in No. 16-405 (U.S., cert. granted Jan. 13, 2017).]

BNSF Railway Co. should win this case, but on statutory grounds alone. BNSF makes three arguments:

1) That Daimler AG v. Bauman forbids Montana’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction here;

2) That Congress has not sought to license the state’s exercise of jurisdiction; and

3) That such a license would be void under the Fourteenth Amendment.

BNSF’s first two arguments are fully persuasive and decide the case. As a result, the Court should decline to reach the third argument. Not only is …