Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss: Dyer V. Smith, Brandon Hasbrouck, Katherine Mims Crocker

Scholarly Articles

This case illustrates how the First Amendment functions as an essential backstop to Fourth Amendment freedoms—and vice versa. As revealed by the national response to the killing of George Floyd and so many similar injustices, the ability to record encounters with government representatives is critical to preserving civil rights, and especially the right to avoid excessive force. The public only “became aware of the circumstances surrounding George Floyd’s death because citizens standing on a sidewalk exercised their First Amendment rights and filmed a police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck until he died.” Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., …

Defending Bridgegate, George D. Brown

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The Supreme Court’s decision in the “Bridgegate” controversy has been the subject of intense debate. It has received strong support. However, some critics assail the decision as representative of a pattern of recent cases in which the Court has shown itself as indifferent to political corruption, if not supportive of it. Somewhat lost in the discussion is the decision’s potential to be the foundation for a seismic re-alignment of anti-corruption enforcement in the United States. The current model—with federal prosecution as the norm—is not cast in stone.

The Pandemic Juror, Melanie D. Wilson

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

While the deadly and highly contagious COVID-19 virus lingers and spreads across the country, courts are resuming criminal jury trials. In moving forward, judges reference case backlogs, speedy trial rights, and other concerns for the rights of the accused. Overlooked in this calculus is the importance of jurors and their safety. The Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Without jurors, there is no justice.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the justice system sometimes took advantage of juror vulnerability, treating jurors callously, if not rudely, during voir dire by asking them intensely …

The Lost Lessons Of Shareholder Derivative Suits, Jessica Erickson

Washington and Lee Law Review

Merger litigation has changed dramatically. Today, nearly every announcement of a significant merger sparks litigation, and these cases look quite different from merger cases in the past. These cases are now filed primarily outside of Delaware, they typically settle without shareholders receiving any financial consideration, and corporate boards now have far more ex ante power to shape these cases. Although these changes are often heralded as unprecedented, they are not. Over the past several decades, derivative suits experienced many of the same changes. This Article explores the similarities between the recent changes in merger litigation and the longer history of …

No Injury? No Class: Proof Of Injury In Federal Antitrust Class Actions Post-Wal-Mart, Rami Abdallah Elias Rashmawi

Washington and Lee Law Review

Over the past twenty years the Supreme Court of the United States has systematically limited the scope of federal class actions brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Importantly, in two landmark decisions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court cemented a heightened level of inquiry demanded by Rule 23, a stringent, “rigorous analysis.”

This Note analyses the effects of this heightened inquiry on federal antitrust class actions, particularly in situations where the plaintiffs’ method of proving antitrust injury fails to do so for some of the putative class …

Enforcement Of The Americans With Disabilities Act: Remedying “Abusive” Litigation While Strengthening Disability Rights, Evelyn Clark

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note explores the Americans with Disabilities Act and the private litigation used to enforce compliance. While the ADA was designed to be enforced by private citizens, many have called for reform to limit what they see as “abusive” litigants. This Note focuses on (1) the perceived problem of vexatious litigants abusing the ADA and its state counterparts to benefit monetarily, (2) the attempted solutions on both a state and federal level, and (3) recommended solutions that focus on protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities while limiting abusive litigation meant to extort businesses.

Ebay, Permanent Injunctions, And Trade Secrets, Elizabeth A. Rowe

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article presents the first qualitative empirical review of permanent injunctions in trade secret cases. In addition, it explores the extent to which the Supreme Court’s patent decision in eBay v. MercExchange has influenced the analysis of equitable principles in federal trade secret litigation. Among the more notable findings are that while equitable principles are generally applied in determining whether to grant a permanent injunction to a prevailing party after trial, the courts are not necessarily strictly applying the four factors from eBay. The award of monetary relief does not preclude equitable injunctive relief, and courts can find irreparable harm …

The Dilemma Of Interstatutory Interpretation, Anuj C. Desai

Washington and Lee Law Review

Courts engage in interstatutory cross-referencing all the time, relying on one statute to help interpret another. Yet, neither courts nor scholars have ever had a satisfactory theory for determining when it is appropriate. Is it okay to rely on any other statute as an interpretive aid? Or, are there limits to the practice? If so, what are they? To assess when interstatutory cross-referencing is appropriate, I focus on one common form of the technique, the in pari materia doctrine. When a court concludes that two statutes are in pari materia or (translating the Latin) “on the same subject,” the court …

Personal Jurisdiction And National Sovereignty, Ray Worthy Campbell

Washington and Lee Law Review

State sovereignty, once seemingly sidelined in personal jurisdiction analysis, has returned with a vengeance. Driven by the idea that states must not offend rival states in their jurisdictional reach, some justices have looked for specific targeting of individual states as individual states by the defendant in order to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. To allow cases to proceed based on national targeting alone, they argue, would diminish the sovereignty of any state that the defendant had specifically targeted.

This Article looks for the first time at how this emphasis on state sovereignty limits national sovereignty, especially where alien defendants …

Preserving The Nationwide National Government Injunction To Stop Illegal Executive Branch Activity, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

The Trump Administration’s extravagant claims of executive power have focused the federal courts’ attention on separation of powers, judicial review, and equitable jurisdiction to grant broad injunctions that forbid the administration’s violations of the Constitution and federal statutes. Critics question the federal courts’ power to grant broad injunctions that are effective everywhere. These critics maintain, among other things, that the federal courts lack jurisdiction and that broad injunctions improperly affect nonparties and militate against “percolation” of issues in a variety of courts.

This Article examines the critics’ arguments and finds them unconvincing. Accepting the critics’ arguments would rebalance the separation …

The Constitutionality Of Nationwide Injunctions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Opponents of nationwide injunctions have advanced cogent reasons why courts should be skeptical of this sweeping remedy, but one of the arguments is a red herring: the constitutional objection. This Essay focuses on the narrow question of whether the Article III judicial power prohibits nationwide injunctions. It doesn’t.

This Essay confronts and dispels the two most plausible arguments that nationwide injunctions run afoul of Article III. First, it shows that standing jurisprudence does not actually speak to the scope-of-remedy questions that nationwide injunctions present. Second, it demonstrates that the Article III judicial power is not narrowly defined in terms of …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae The Washington And Lee University School Of Law Black Lung Clinic In Support Of Petitioners: California V. Texas, Timothy C. Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

Section 1556 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) makes two major changes to the Black Lung Benefits Act. These changes remove limiting language to make it simpler for disabled miners and their families to establish that they are entitled to federal benefits. First, § 1556(a) reinstates the fifteen-year rebuttable presumption, which presumptively entitles former coal miners to benefits if they have worked over fifteen years underground and have a totally disabling pulmonary disease. The second, § 1556(b), reinstates a continuation of benefits for surviving spouses whose coal-mining spouse was receiving benefits at the time of their death. …

Gamesmanship And Criminal Process, John D. King

Scholarly Articles

We first learn formal structures of rules, procedures, and norms of conduct through games and sports. These lessons illuminate and inform human behavior in other contexts, including the adversarial world of criminal litigation. As critiques of the legitimacy and fairness of the criminal justice system increase, the philosophy and jurisprudence of sport offer a comparative legal system to examine criminal litigation. Allegations of gamesmanship—the aggressive and strategic use of rules that violate some sense of decorum or culture yet remain within the formal rules of engagement—cut across both contexts. This Article examines what sports can teach us about gamesmanship in …