Law Commons^™

Judicial Review And Deliberative Politics. A Tension In Need Of Analysis., Donald E. Bello Hutt

Donald E. Bello Hutt

Champions of judicial review of legislation have defended this institution even before John Marshall decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Nevertheless, those defenses have to face with several difficulties, both practical and abstract. The aim of this paper is to analyze those difficulties and the context in which the defenses have been successful. We shall discuss the origins of judicial review in the work of James Iredell, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall in order to introduce not only the first defenses of judicial review, but to fix the political context and dominant constitutional philosophy at their time: departmentalism and popular …

Opting Out Of The Procedural Morass: A Solution To The Class Arbitration Problem, Emanwel J. Turnbull

Emanwel J Turnbull

American class actions are internationally regarded as a procedural form to avoid and widely criticized in the United States. They have been narrowed and restricted by U.S. statutes and case law. Plaintiffs' lawyers in consumer class actions are portrayed as greedy and fraudulent, while businesses are increasingly acting to avoid class actions through mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses. Even class arbitration is criticized as leading to a “procedural morass.” This Article proposes that parties and arbitral fora opt out of the American procedural morass (and the attendant long-running disputes about American class actions) by adopting an English procedural rule for aggregation. …

Pirate Accessory Liability – Developing A Modern Legal Regime Governing Incitement And Intentional Facilitation Of Maritime Piracy, Roger L. Phillips

Roger L Phillips

Despite the exponential growth of piracy off the coast of Somalia since 2008, there have been no prosecutions of those who have profited most from ransom proceeds; that is crime bosses and pirate financiers. As U.S. courts begin to charge higher-level pirates, they must ascertain the status of customary international law as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. UNCLOS includes two forms of accessory liability suited to such prosecutions, but a number of ambiguities remain in the interpretation of these forms of liability. These lacunae cannot be explained by reference to the plain terms of …

Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards By States In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity

Matthew H Charity

The number of nations that have signed and ratified the Rome Treaty of the International Criminal Court continues to expand, but the number of cases prosecuted remains fairly small. One issue that defies resolution is the place of complementarity in the post-conflict jurisdictional decisions of the I.C.C. and national tribunals. Although the Rome Statute crystallizes definitions of core international crimes, the interpretation of processes leaving jurisdiction with the nation or allowing jurisdiction to the I.C.C. continues to lack structure.

One step that some states have taken in implementing legislation and processes in support of jurisdiction over I.C.C. core crimes is …

Greater And Lesser Powers, Samuel Levin

Samuel Levin

During much of the twentieth century it was relatively stylish for lawyers, judges and justices to argue that an exercise of power was permissible because "the greater power [to do something else] necessarily includes the lesser power [to do this]." Unfortunately, sloppy and unprincipled uses that merely reflected the intuitions of those who invoked it has largely discredited the argument, although it still makes some relevant appearances.

This paper argues that there is a principled way to apply the argument: by looking to the relative harms caused by each exercise of power. However, any notion of "necessarily includes" needs to …

Death To Immunity From Service Of Process Doctrine!, John Martinez

John Martinez

The immunity from service of process doctrine provides that a nonresident cannot be served while going to, attending, and leaving an ongoing judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine evolved while "tag" jurisdiction was in vogue, whereby mere presence in the forum state sufficed, and the nonresident only had to be "tagged" with service to confer jurisdiction on the forum state. This article suggests that modern "minimum contacts" territorial jurisdiction theory more adequately addresses the concerns of efficiency of judicial proceedings and fairness to nonresidents than the immunity from service of process doctrine. The article proposes that the immunity from service of …

Death To Immunity From Service Of Process Doctrine!, John Martinez

John Martinez

Death to Immunity From Service of Process Doctrine!

By John Martinez, Professor of Law

S.J. Quinney College of Law

at the University of Utah

ABSTRACT

The immunity from service of process doctrine provides that a nonresident cannot be served while going to, attending, and leaving an ongoing judicial proceeding. However, the doctrine evolved while "tag" jurisdiction was in vogue, whereby mere presence in the forum state sufficed, and the nonresident only had to be "tagged" with service to confer jurisdiction on the forum state. This article suggests that modern "minimum contacts" territorial jurisdiction theory more adequately addresses the concerns of …

Fragmenting The Judiciary: Potential Ideological Effects Of Shifting Implementation Of Supreme Court Doctrine From Federal Courts To State Courts, Ryan Walters

Ryan Walters

More than ever, the Supreme Court of the United States can rely on an army of life-tenured judges on lower federal courts to implement the doctrines it develops on statutory and constitutional issues. Those judges are shielded from public opinion on controversial rulings, and recent research has shown that the Supreme Court itself is more likely to be affected by elite opinion than that of the public.

Despite checks and balances being a centerpiece of the constitutional order, the increasing size and jurisdictional scope of the federal judiciary, combined with its lack of political accountability, has led to a increase …

Sales Tax Exceptionalism, Andrew J. Haile

Andrew J. Haile

There is something different about the state sales tax, or so it seems based on judicial decisions creating unique jurisdictional and apportionment standards for the tax. This Article explores the concept of “sales tax exceptionalism,” and assesses whether the special treatment afforded to the sales tax is justified by the theoretical foundations of the tax. In particular, the Article examines whether theoretical justifications exist for the unique jurisdictional standard applied to the sales tax (a “physical presence” standard), as compared to the “economic presence” standard applied to the corporate income tax. Ultimately, the Article concludes that only weak theoretical justifications …

Civil Rule 54(B); Seventy-Five And Ready For Retirement, Andrew S. Pollis

Andrew S Pollis

As we commemorate the diamond anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Article takes a critical look at one of the failed rules: Rule 54(b). Although many commentators have noted difficulties with Rule 54(b), this is the first to describe them comprehensively, analyze their root causes, and offer a workable alternative. When an order resolves a discrete claim in a multi-claim action, Rule 54(b) permits a district court to sever the order for immediate appeal by finding “no just reason for delay.” The rule was designed to ease the hardship on litigants who would otherwise have to await …

A Catch 22: The Price To Pay For Property Rights Under The Clean Water Act And Administrative Compliance Orders, Lindsey F. Brewer

Lindsey F. Brewer

Environmental conservationist groups often argue that private-property owners are alert to wetland designations -- especially in their own backyard -- and as a result no procedural due process is necessary for the EPA to issue an administrative compliance order (ACO). But as a practical matter it is very difficult to make a wetland determination, and individual private-property owners are building residential homes on potential wetlands without knowledge. The result is forced and costly compliance with the EPA. The environmental concerns are valid, but property and liberty interests are protected by the Constitution. How can the Court strike a balance between …

Standing As Channeling In The Administrative Age, Dru Stevenson, Sonny Eckhart

Dru Stevenson

For several decades, courts have approached citizen suits with judicially created rules for standing. These requirements for standing have been vague and unworkable, and often serve merely as a screening mechanism for docket management. The use of standing rules to screen cases, in turn, yields inconsistent decisions and tribunal splits along partisan lines, suggesting that courts are using these rules in citizen suits as a proxy for the merits. Numerous commentators, and some Supreme Court Justices, have therefore suggested that Congress could, or should, provide legislative guidelines for standing. This Article takes the suggestion a step further, and argues that …

Expressing Faith In And Giving Credit To State Courts: The Erie Doctrine And Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Jonathan S. Ross

Jonathan S Ross

The Full Faith and Credit Clause and statute require federal and state courts to give the same effect to a state court’s judgment as would the state court that rendered the judgment. Thus, the provisions promote national unity and prevent litigants from resorting to other courts after incurring adverse judgments. While the full faith and credit provisions do not acknowledge exceptions, the Court has long recognized that exceptions to them exist. However, the Court has not set forth the limits of many of these exceptions. Absent Supreme Court guidance, state and federal courts have considered and applied various novel full …

Expressing Faith In And Giving Credit To State Courts: The Erie Doctrine And Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Jonathan S. Ross

Jonathan S Ross

The Full Faith and Credit Clause and statute require federal and state courts to give the same effect to a state court’s judgment as would the state court that rendered the judgment. Thus, the provisions promote national unity and prevent litigants from resorting to other courts after incurring adverse judgments. While the full faith and credit provisions do not acknowledge exceptions, the Court has long recognized that exceptions to them exist. However, the Court has not set forth the limits of many of these exceptions. Absent Supreme Court guidance, state and federal courts have considered and applied various novel full …

The Right To Remain Silent: Addressing A Government Attorney Client Privilege In The Context Of A Grand Jury Subpoena, Matan Shmuel

Matan Shmuel

This article deals with the circuit split over whether a government agency can use government attorneys to conceal what would otherwise become public information. Often, a government agency representative might discuss with nearby agency counsel personal legal information outside the scope of their employment. Courts are split over whether this is privileged or not. My article proposes a solution to the split by implementing a factor test which takes into account the government interest in confidentiality, the public need for disclosure, and the ability of the grand jury to find the information elsewhere.

The Extension Clause And The Supreme Court's Jurisdictional Independence, Alex Glashausser

Alex Glashausser

This Article challenges the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view that the Extension Clause—which provides that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend” to nine types of cases and controversies—justifies legislative attempts to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction. Legislators have repeatedly introduced bills seeking to prevent the Court from hearing cases on politically charged topics such as marriage, religion, and abortion. Scholars have relied on the Extension Clause to advance three arguments in support of such jurisdiction-stripping: (1) that “judicial Power” is not jurisdiction, and thus jurisdiction is not constitutionally protected; (2) that “shall” is not mandatory, and thus the …

Conflict In The Court? Supreme Court Recusal From Marbury To The Modern Day, James Sample

James Sample

For justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, controversies pitting personal conflicts ¬¬— whether actual or merely alleged — against the constitutional commitment to the rule of law increasingly form the basis of a caustic and circular national dialogue that generates substantially more heat than light. While the profile of these controversies is undoubtedly waxing, the underlying tensions stretch back at least to Marbury v. Madison. For all its seminal import, in Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall adjudicated a case involving, inter alia, the validity of judicial commissions Marshall had himself signed and sealed while serving simultaneously as the outgoing Secretary …

Unjustifiable Expectations: Laying To Rest The Ghosts Of Allotment-Era Settlers, Ann E. Tweedy

Ann E. Tweedy

When the Supreme Court decides whether a tribe has jurisdiction over non-members on its reservation or addresses the related issue of reservation diminishment, it often refers implicitly or explicitly to the non-Indians’ justifiable expectations. The non-Indians’ assumed expectations arise from the fact that, when Congress opened up reservations to non-Indians during the allotment era, its assumption, and presumably that of non-Indians who purchased lands on reservations during that period, was that the reservations would disappear due to the federal government’s assimilationist policies, along with the tribes who governed them. To refute the idea that such non-Indian expectations were justifiable, I …

When The Emperor Has No Clothes Iii: Personnel Policies And Conflicts Of Interest In American Prosecutors’ Offices, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

This Article examines and evaluates an alternate cause of overcharging in the United States, one that has not received much attention from courts or in the scholarly comparative criminal-procedure literature: the extent to which internal personnel policies in American prosecutors’ offices create incentives to overcharge that do not exist in their counterparts overseas. The number and seriousness of convictions and the amount of punishment are the basic standards by which the success of American prosecutors is measured. In order to curb overcharging and other forms of prosecutorial misconduct in the United States, courts should disqualify prosecutors whose offices explicitly or …

When The Emperor Has No Clothes Iii: Personnel Policies And Conflicts Of Interest In Prosecutors’ Offices, Carrie Leonetti

Carrie Leonetti

This Article examines and evaluates an alternate cause of overcharging, one that has not received much attention from courts or in the scholarly literature: the extent to which internal personnel policies in prosecutors’ offices create incentives to overcharge. The number and seriousness of convictions and the amount of punishment are the basic standards by which the success of prosecutors is measured. In order to curb overcharging and other forms of prosecutorial misconduct, courts should disqualify prosecutors whose offices explicitly or implicitly determine their job status, compensation, or advancement on the basis of their conviction or sentencing record on the ground …

To Testify Or Not To Testify: The Dilemma Facing Children With Multiple Cases Before The Same Judge In Delinquency Court., Katherine I. Puzone

Katherine I. Puzone

In Juvenile Court, children often have more than one case pending, especially children living in group foster homes and those at alternative schools. In many jurisdictions, all of a child’s cases are assigned to the same judge. If the child is arrested at a later time, the new case is also assigned to the same judge. That means that if a child exercises her right to go to trial in each case, the same judge will hear every case. If they are set for trial on the same day, and they often are, the judge will hear each case in …

No State Actor Left Behind: Rethinking Section 1983 Liability In The Context Of Disciplinary Alternative Schools And Beyond, Emily Chiang

Emily Chiang

In an era in which seemingly no institutions are immune from privatization, determining the boundaries of state action has never been more important. This Article seeks to clarify the doctrine of state action as applied to publicly-funded, privately-run institutions serving individuals involuntarily placed there by the state. It does so by using disciplinary alternative schools as a classic example of one such institution, wherein the individuals served have constitutional rights that are both particularly vulnerable to infringement and which cannot be vindicated without a finding of state action. In particular, the Article (1) introduces the phenomena of disciplinary alternative schools …

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Permissive Counterclaims: A Misconception, Douglas D. Mcfarland

Douglas D. McFarland

This article examines the rapidly growing line of precedent in federal courts that supplemental jurisdiction can exist over a permissive counterclaim. The line springs from two decisions baldly asserting the “case or controversy under Article III” test of § 1367(a) for supplemental jurisdiction requires only a “loose factual connection” of the facts, and so is broader than the “transaction or occurrence” test that limned both ancillary jurisdiction and the compulsory counterclaim rule prior to Congress’ intervention into this settled area of law in 1990. Later cases in the line of precedent simply cite the two founding cases without attempting any …

Standing On Holy Ground: How Rethinking Justiciability Might Bring Peace To The Establishment Clause, John M. Bickers

John M. Bickers

The Establishment Clause is home to both procedural and substantive disorder. Particularly when evaluating religious speech by the government, the Supreme Court has applied a number of distinct tests, with varying degrees of strictness. There has never been an overarching principle for determining which test would appear at which time; commentators, and occasionally the Justices themselves, have suspected that desired results drove the choice of tests. At the same time, the Court has articulated a series of requirements necessary for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge government action, only to ignore them in government religious speech cases. The resulting …

Uk Amendment To The Law On Universal Jurisdiction: Prolonging The Road To Justice, Saoirse Townshend

Saoirse Townshend

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSR Act 2011) was given Royal Assent and became enforceable law in the UK on 15 September 2011. Most significantly for international law and in particular the law on universal jurisdiction, the Act introduces a new requirement for private prosecutors to obtain the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) prior to the issue of an arrest warrant for offences such as war crimes or torture. Practically, this extra hurdle will mean a lengthening of the prosecution process, and has led many to believe that the reform leaves the UK weakened …