Law Commons^™

The Interplay Between U.S. Statutory Rights And Public Policy Under The Faa And New York Convention In International Disputes, Daniel Schwarz

Daniel M. Schwarz

The “prospective waiver” doctrine allows U.S. courts to invalidate or sever arbitration clauses in otherwise valid agreements to arbitrate where arbitrating under foreign law would prevent a U.S. party from seeking relief under a U.S. statute. The loss of this opportunity is said to affront U.S. public policy. This paper acknowledges that courts’ application of this idea has resulted in the need for a more fundamental revisiting of the question of whose law should be “mandatory” in international arbitration. But more specifically, this paper proposes appropriate sets of factors for pre-arbitration courts, arbitrators, and post-arbitration enforcement courts to consider in …

The Problem Of Trans-National Libel, Lili Levi

Lili Levi

Abstract: Forum shopping in trans-national libel cases – “libel tourism” – has a chilling effect on journalism, academic scholarship, and scientific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legislatively. In 2010, the U.S. passed the SPEECH Act, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from jurisdictions applying law less protective than the First Amendment. On March 15, 2011, the British Ministry of Justice proposed a draft Defamation Act 2011 with provisions designed, inter alia, to discourage libel tourism. This Article questions the extent to which the …

The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

The Article Ii Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara L. Grove

Tara L. Grove

Jurisdiction stripping has long been treated as a battle between Congress and the federal judiciary. Scholars have thus overlooked the important (and surprising) role that the executive branch has played in these jurisdictional struggles. I seek to fill that void. Drawing on two strands of social science research, I argue that the executive branch has a strong incentive to use its constitutional authority over the enactment and enforcement of federal law to oppose jurisdiction-stripping measures. Notably, this structural argument has considerable historical support. The executive branch has repeatedly opposed jurisdiction-stripping proposals in Congress. That has been true even when the …

The Article Ii Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara L. Grove

Tara L. Grove

Jurisdiction stripping has long been treated as a battle between Congress and the federal judiciary. Scholars have thus overlooked the important (and surprising) role that the executive branch has played in these jurisdictional struggles. I seek to fill that void. Drawing on two strands of social science research, I argue that the executive branch has a strong incentive to use its constitutional authority over the enactment and enforcement of federal law to oppose jurisdiction-stripping measures. Notably, this structural argument has considerable historical support. The executive branch has repeatedly opposed jurisdiction-stripping proposals in Congress. That has been true even when the …

Stern V. Marshall, And The Power Of Bankruptcy Courts To Issue Final Orders On All Compulsory Counterclaims, Ronald D. Rotunda

Ronald D. Rotunda

Article III of the Constitution grants federal district judges, appellate court judges, and Supreme Court Justices important constitutional protections (lifetime tenure and no salary diminution) to guarantee their independence. However, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to create, under Article I, a different class of judges (called "Article I judges"). These judges (such as tax court and bankruptcy court judges) do not have Article III protection and thus do not share Article III independence. Although we might think of Article I judges as administrative law hearing officers, they do exercise some judge-like powers. The extent of those powers raises fundamental …

State Law, U.S. Power, Foreign Disputes: Understanding The Extraterritorial Effects Of State Law In The Wake Of Morrison V. National Australia Bank, Katherine Florey

Katherine J. Florey

The recent Supreme Court case of Morrison v. National Australia Bank embraced a sweeping version of the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal law, and in doing so dramatically restricted the potential applicability of federal securities law to foreign litigants and transactions. This development has attracted a wealth of commentary, most of which has focused on the implications for the future treatment of federal statutes that may apply to foreign conduct.

Scholars have overlooked, however, perhaps the most remarkable consequence of the Court’s opinion in Morrison: the fact that it in effects makes state law more widely applicable abroad than …

Foreign Citizens In Transnational Class Actions, Jay Tidmarsh, Linda Sandstrom Simard

Jay Tidmarsh

This Article addresses an increasingly important question: When, if ever, should foreign citizens be included as members of an American class action? The existing consensus holds that courts should exclude from class membership those foreign citizens whose country does not recognize an American class judgment. Our analysis begins by establishing that this consensus is flawed. Rather, to minimize the costs associated with relitigation in a foreign forum, we must distinguish between foreign claimants who are likely to commence a subsequent foreign proceeding from those who are unlikely to do so; distinguishing between those who come from recognizing and nonrecognizing countries …

Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction In Kansas, Stacy Leeds

Stacy Leeds

The Kansas Act of 1940 is no longer relevant and continues to undercut tribal sovereignty. The Kansas Act was passed to cover the jurisdictional gap caused by the tribal communities’ lack of a judicial system. The Federal Government gave the state of Kansas concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute offenses addressed by federal law. After the Kansas Act was passed, three sovereigns—the United States, the State of Kansas, and any of the four federally recognized tribes located within State boundaries—had the ability to prosecute an individual American Indian for a single crime committed in Indian country. This could lead to duplicative prosecutions. …

En Banc Revealed: Procedure, Politics, And Privacy, Abigail Stecker

Abigail Stecker

The en banc process is complex and perhaps mysterious. Through this process, a majority of judges on a federal court of appeals can vote to rehear a case that its own three-judge panel already decided; thus, rehearing a case en banc allows the court to issue a superseding decision with highly precedential effect. In theory, en banc rehearing allows all of the court’s judges to determine circuit law, rather than just three judges. In the Ninth Circuit, specifically, multiple events must occur before the court will rehear a case en banc. Many of these events are complicated and private, despite …

Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

“The Grass That Gets Trampled When Elephants Fight”: Will The Codification Of The Crime Of Aggression Protect Women?, Beth Van Schaack

Beth Van Schaack

This article analyzes the outcome of the Kampala process with an eye toward the rarely-considered gender aspects of the crime of aggression, whether or not the provisions adopted represent an advancement for women, and how aspects of feminist theory might interpret the new regime. The Article concludes that any impact of the provisions will inevitably be limited by gaps and ambiguities in the definition of the crime and the jurisdictional regime, which is premised on state consent and exempts non-states parties altogether. At the same time, the insertion of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute enables the prosecution …

The Uses Of Indispensable Sovereigns: Pimentel And The Evolution Of Rule 19, Katherine J. Florey

Katherine J. Florey

This Article attempts to fill some of the gap in academic treatment of Rule 19 by considering an important and timely issue in the Rule’s application. It makes the argument that, while Rule 19 was originally intended to facilitate the consolidation of litigation by authorizing mandatory joinder of absent parties, it has evolved in an important subset of cases to serve a nearly opposite purpose. That is, in many cases where a party may be affected by the litigation but cannot be joined because it is a sovereign possessing immunity from suit, courts have developed a near-categorical rule that the …

You Infringed My Patent, Now Wait Until I Sue You: The Federal Circuit’S Decision In Avocent Huntsville Corp. V. Aten International Co., Marta Vanegas

Marta R. Vanegas LL.M.

The Federal Circuit recently held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, because neither the patentee’s sales within the forum state, nor their patent enforcement letters constituted sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. This Note argues that the Federal Circuit erroneously held that a patentee’s sales in the forum state are irrelevant to specific personal jurisdiction. The Note surveys the legal background of personal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment actions, particularly in the patent context. The Note then argues that the Federal Circuit's recent line of cases incorrectly held that a patentee’s sales of the patented product within the forum …

The Structural Safeguards Of Federal Jurisdiction, Tara L. Grove

Tara L. Grove

Scholars have long debated Congress’s power to curb federal jurisdiction and have consistently assumed that the constitutional limits on Congress’s authority (if any) must be judicially enforceable and found in the text and structure of Article III. In this Article, I challenge that fundamental assumption. I argue that the primary constitutional protection for the federal judiciary lies instead in the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. These Article I lawmaking procedures give competing political factions (even political minorities) considerable power to “veto” legislation. Drawing on recent social science and legal scholarship, I argue that political factions are particularly likely …

Amicus Brief, First American Financial Corp. V. Edwards, No. 10-708, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

O'Connell V. Chapman Univ., No. 10-810, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

What Is A Genuine Industrial Dispute? Attorney General For The State Of Queensland And The State Of Victoria & Anor V Riordan & Ors; Ex Parte The Australian Liquor Hospitality And Miscellaneous Workers Union & Ors, Amanda Coulthard

Amanda Coulthard

Extract: There is a long standing doctrine that the service and rejection of a log of claims can generate an industrial dispute within the meaning of s 4(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). It is the scope of the qualification to this doctrine, namely that the demands in a log of claims be 'genuine', that is at the heart of this appeal. The appeal arises out of a finding made by Senior Deputy President Riordan of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') that the service of a log of claims by the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous …

Indian Country’S Borders: Territoriality, Immunity, And The Construction Of Tribal Sovereignty, Katherine Florey

Katherine J. Florey

This Article explores an anomaly in the Supreme Court’s Indian law jurisprudence that has been much remarked upon but never discussed at length. In the past few decades, the Supreme Court has sharply limited the regulatory powers of tribal governments and the jurisdiction of tribal courts over nonmembers, even when their conduct occurs on the reservation or on tribe-owned land. As a result, tribes lack the ability to exert sway over a great deal of conduct occurring within reservation borders. At the same time, however, the Court has left intact the sovereign immunity that tribes have traditionally enjoyed — an …

About Time: The Timeliness Of Habeas Corpus And An Exceptional Circumstance In Boumediene V. Bush, Benjamin Lozano

Benjamin J Lozano

In wartime states of emergency, the Supreme Court has historically held that a constitutional entitlement to habeas review is neither predicated on the length of detention nor the timeliness of due process, but rather is objective, concrete, and atemporal. The question of wartime habeas corpus has therefore always been an ontological question, exclusively determined by the corresponding categories of subject and space. However, this paper argues that a surreptitious shift in methodology buried inside the ostensible precedent of Boumediene v. Bush should not be overlooked, for the ruling signals the inaugural moment whereby the length and indefinite duration (i.e. the …

What Is Really Fair: Internet Sales And The Georgia Long-Arm Statute, Ryan T. Holte

Prof. Ryan T. Holte

This article analyzes the current issue of online merchants being forced to defend themselves in foreign jurisdictions during litigation concerning online sales. Part I describes the history of personal jurisdiction from its nineteenth century concerns with territoriality to the twentieth century minimum contacts standard to other, more recent developments. Part II summarizes personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts as applied to the Internet generally and discusses whether Internet sales contain sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the constitutional prerequisites for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the seller. Part III analyzes the Georgia long-arm statute as it relates to jurisdiction over persons …

Noonan V. Staples: Libel Law’S Shocking New Precedent And What It Means For The Motion Picture Industry, Lindsee Gendron

Lindsee Blair Gendron

No abstract provided.

In Defence Of The Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens, Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

Dan Svantesson

This article examines the doctrine of forum non conveniens as applied in Hong Kong, Australia, the US and Sweden, and considers the criticism that has been raised against the doctrine. The author argues that some of this criticism is valid, some of it is valid only in relation to some countries’ application of the doctrine, and some of the criticism is unfounded. The author concludes that the test applied in Hong Kong and most other common law jurisdictions - the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum test - is the better option. The author goes on to make a number …

The Duty Of Treatment: Human Rights And The Hiv/Aids Pandemic, Noah B. Novogrodsky

Noah B Novogrodsky

This article argues that the treatment of HIV and AIDS is spawning a juridical, advocacy and enforcement revolution. The intersection of AIDS and human rights was once characterized almost exclusively by anti-discrimination and destigmatization efforts. Today, human rights advocates are demanding life-saving treatment and convincing courts and legislatures to make states pay for it. Using a comparative Constitutional law methodology that places domestic courts at the center of the struggle for HIV treatment, this article shows how the provision of AIDS medications is reframing the right to health and the implementation of socio-economic rights. First, it locates an emerging right …

Chatterjee V. Ontario: Property, Crime And Civil Proceedings, Michelle Gallant

Michelle Gallant

This paper examines the decision in Chatterjee v. Ontario (Attorney General), which upheld the constitutionality of provincial legislation permitting the pursuit of civil actions in response to criminal activity. The legislation in question, Ontario's Civil Remedies Act, enabled the pursuit of money remedies for criminal activities through civil legal proceedings. The Supreme Court of Canada in Chatterjee examined whether or not provincial legislation permitting civil actions for breaches of the federal Criminal Code was ultra vires provincial jurisdiction. This paper provides an overview and an analysis of the Chatterjee decision.

Ripe Standing Vines And The Jurisprudential Tasting Of Matured Legal Wines – And Law & Bananas: Property And Public Choice In The Permitting Process, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

From produce to wine, we only consume things when they are ready. The courts are no different. That concept of “readiness” is how courts address cases and controversies as well. Justiciability doctrines, particularly ripeness, have a particularly important role in takings challenges to permitting decisions. The courts largely hold that a single permit denial does not give them enough information to evaluate whether the denial is in violation of law. As a result of this jurisprudential reality, regulators with discretion have an incentive to use their power to extract rents from those that need their permission. Non-justiciability of permit denials …

Minimum Contacts In A Borderless World: Voice Over Internet Protocol And The Coming Implosion Of Personal Jurisdiction Theory, Danielle Keats Citron

Danielle Keats Citron

Modern personal jurisdiction theory rests on the twin pillars of state sovereignty and due process. A nonresident’s “minimum contacts” with a forum state are treated as the equivalent of her territorial presence in the state and hence justify a state’s exercise of sovereignty over her. At the same time, the nonresident’s “purposeful availment” of opportunities within the state is seen as implying her agreement to that state’s jurisdiction in exchange for the protection of its laws. This theory presumes that a nonresident directs voice communications to known places by dialing a telephone number’s area code. Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) …

Reaffirming The Rights Of Foreign Investors To The Protection Of Icsid Arbitration: Sempra Energy International V. The Argentine Republic, Daniel Krawiec

Daniel A Krawiec II

Earlier this decade, the Argentine government responded to a substantial domestic economic crises by passing several emergency laws and unilaterally changing the terms of its investment agreements with foreign investors. Sempra v. Argentine Republic is an important case because the tribunal decisively reaffirmed the right to ICSID arbitration for American investors harmed by Argentina’s actions. Furthermore, the tribunal held that the U.S.-Argentina bilateral investment treaty provided substantial substantive investment protection.

Sovereign Immunity’S Penumbras: Common Law, ‘Accident,’ And Policy In The Development Of Sovereign Immunity Doctrine, Katherine J. Florey

Katherine J. Florey

“Sovereign Immunity’s Penumbras” attempts to make a fresh contribution to sovereign immunity scholarship by examining how sovereign immunity doctrine develops at the margins. At their core, what sovereign immunity doctrines prohibit is generally clear: a suit against an unconsenting sovereign (whether a state, a tribe, a foreign nation, or the federal government) for money damages. When suits fall outside this configuration, however, courts often have difficulty determining exactly how far the doctrine should extend. What should courts do, for example, when a sovereign is not a named defendant in a given suit, but will have to join the litigation if …

Leave Those Orcs Alone: Property Rights In Virtual Worlds, Kevin Deenihan

Kevin E Deenihan

Conversion of property is a familiar piece of law. What about conversion of virtual property? In 2006, a man filed suit claiming theft of virtual real estate he maintained in a Virtual World. The Judge may well have wondered: is this property law? Intellectual property? Torts? Contract? When should the law even apply to Virtual Worlds at all? New societies populated by millions of people have sprung up in the online context. Their inhabitants buy goods, trade with each other, and form complex self-regulating organizations and economic systems. All are activities governed in the real world by centuries of legal …