Law Commons^™

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

Jurisdiction, Abstention, And Finality: Articulating A Unique Role For The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Dustin Buehler

Dustin Buehler

Federal courts frequently confuse the Rooker-Feldman doctrine with Younger abstention and preclusion law, often using these doctrines interchangeably to dismiss actions that would interfere with state court proceedings. For years, scholars argued that the Supreme Court should alleviate this confusion by abolishing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine altogether. The Court recently refused to so, however. In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. and Lance v. Dennis, the Court reaffirmed Rooker-Feldman’s vitality, and held that the doctrine plays a unique role, completely separate from abstention and preclusion rules. And yet these decisions leave a key question unanswered: exactly how does Rooker-Feldman …

Home Is Where The Hq Is: Corporate Citizenship Following The Supreme Court's Decision In Hertz V. Friend, Sean-Patrick Wilson, Keena M. Hausmann, Paul A. Rosenthal

Sean-Patrick Wilson

On February 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), no. 08-1107 (“Hertz”). Th Hertz case represents the only time the Supreme Court has addressed the question of where a business’s “principal place of business” is located for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling is certain to have significant ramifications for American corporations, as it determines when corporations can be sued in federal court (as they might prefer), or in plaintiff-friendly state courts. As the most authoritative case discussing diversity jurisdiction for corporations today, …

Judging Cercla: An Empirical Analysis Of Circuit Court Decision-Making, Clifford Chad Henson

Clifford Chad Henson

Abstract: Political scientists, and increasingly legal scholars, have become skeptical of judges’ attempts to explain decisions based exclusively on applying fact to law, and have attempted to identify factors that influence judicial decision-making. This study isolates a set of cases dealing with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and identifies variable sets corresponding to factors one would expect to be significant under competing models of judicial decision-making. While both the legal and extra-legal model independently explain some judicial decision-making, the legal model has more explanatory power and adds significantly to the explanatory power of the extra-legal …

Where's The Party: Do Class Action Plaintiffs Really Prefer State Courts?, Neil J. Marchand

Neil J. Marchand

Scholars and interest groups have discussed litigants’ behavior in the class action context. This paper uses empirical data to determine whether class action plaintiffs actually prefer to litigate their suits in state courts. Despite well-reasoned conjectures on the subject, to date there is a paucity of empirical data on class action litigation, especially at the state court level. This scarcity has thwarted analysis of the likelihood of class certification in the state courts, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005’s (CAFA) total impact on the judiciary, and the predictability of class action litigation. This study aims to start filling the …

A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Lumen N. Mulligan

Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court’s section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of “right” (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …

An Intellectual History Of Judicial Activism, Craig Green

Roger Craig Green

This Article seeks to transform how readers view judicial activism. From newsrooms to confirmation hearings, judicial activism is a uniquely potent and popular epithet condemning judicial misconduct. By contrast, most legal scholars either eschew activism-talk as too vague, or they adopt unsound definitions of the term as (i) any exercise of judicial review or (ii) any unfavorable result. These trends have segregated normative debates over judicial activity, with solidly unfortunate results.

This Article reclaims the term judicial activism by exploring the concept of judicial activism that underlies it. One goal of this Article is to dispel widespread misperceptions about judicial …

Illegal Immigration And The Southwest Border District Courts, Thomas J. Bak

Thomas J. Bak

Abstract This paper examines the increase in immigration filings in federal district courts in the southwest United States during the period from 1993 through 2005, a time when the Border Patrol and U.S. Attorneys in southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas stepped up enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. It follows the shift in the tide of immigration cases from the Southern District of California (CA,S), eastward, as successive initiatives in different Border Patrol sectors continually diverted the flow of illegal immigrants. A mathematical model is used to show the strong correlation between immigration case filings and Border Patrol staffing, …

Rejecting The Touchstone: Complete Preemption And Congressional Intent After Beneficial National Bank V. Anderson, Margaret C. Tarkington

Margaret C Tarkington

The paper examines the doctrine of complete preemption—a jurisdictional doctrine that allows for removal based on a federal preemption defense contrary to the well-pleaded complaint rule. The doctrine was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson. This paper explores efficiency, separation of powers, and federalism problems created by Anderson, both generally and in the context of a specific statutory scheme—the Carmack Amendment. The paper then offers a new framework, relying on congressional intent to create federal removal jurisdiction, for determining when complete preemption should apply.