Law Commons^™

Re-Examining Customary International Law And The Federal Courts: An Introduction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Legal scholars have debated intensely the role of customary international law in the American federal system. The debate involves serious questions surrounding the United States's constitutional structure, foreign relations, and human rights. Despite an impressive body of scholarship, the debate has stood at an impasse in recent years, without either side garnering a consensus. This symposium–Re-examining Customary International Law and the Federal Courts–aspires to help advance the debate over the status of customary international law in the federal courts.

The symposium received thoughtful and constructive contributions from Professors Curtis A. Bradley, Bradford R. Clark, Andrew Kent, Carlos M. Vizquez, and …

Book Review Of The Supreme Court And The American Elite, 1789-2008, By Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Joerg Knipprath

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

'A Considerable Surgical Operation: Article Iii, Equity, And Judge-Made Law In The Federal Courts, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the history of judge-made law in the federal courts through the lens of the early-nineteenth-century federal courts’ equity powers. In a series of equity cases, and in the Federal Equity Rules promulgated by the Court in 1822 and 1842, the Supreme Court vehemently insisted that lower federal courts employ a uniform corpus of nonstate equity principles with respect to procedure, remedies, and - in certain instances - primary rights and liabilities. Careful attention to the historical sources suggests that the uniform equity doctrine was not simply the product of an overreaching, consolidationist Supreme Court, but is best …

Federal Jurisdiction, Susan H. Handelman

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unfairness In Access To And Citation Of Unpublished Federal Court Decisions, Peter Jan Honigsberg, James A. Dikel

Golden Gate University Law Review

An unfair system has evolved over the past fifteen years in the federal courts. The federal courts changed the concept of stare decisis. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States decided that they needed to reduce the increasing workload of the federal judges. The best way to do so, they thought, was to distinguish between decisions. Some would be worthy of publication and some would not be. Thus, federal judges were instructed to separate out those rulings which would be useful to future litigants or which did more than merely repeat and mechanically apply well-settled rules of law. …

Gender, Affirmative Action, And Recruitment To The Federal Bench, Elliot E. Slotnick

Golden Gate University Law Review

In the analysis which follows, an effort will be made to assess the historical record of the appointment of women to the federal bench. Extended consideration will be given to the Carter administration's judicial recruitment behavior in an effort to assess the thrust and implications of the President's affirmative action concerns. How successful was Carter in appointing women to the federal judiciary and how did the women appointees differ, if at all, from their male colleagues? Do women appointees follow a different "path" to the bench than males? Did affirmative action "dilute" the quality of the federal bench as many …

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, …

Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts, S. I. Strong

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

An Originalist Theory Of Precedent: The Privileged Place Of Originalist Precedent, Lee Strang

Lee J Strang

In this Article, I show that originalism retains a robust role for originalist precedent thereby enabling originalism to fit our legal practice and appropriate the normative attractiveness of stare decisis. This Article therefore fills a prominent gap in originalist theory.

First, I briefly review the debate in originalism over the role of constitutional precedent.

Second, I describe how participants in our legal practice can distinguish between originalist and nonoriginalist precedent using a standard called Originalism in Good Faith. Under Originalism in Good Faith, precedents that are a good faith attempt to articulate and apply the Constitution’s original meaning, are originalist …

Balancing Judicial Cognizance And Caution: Whether Transnational Corporations Are Liable For Foreign Bribery Under The Alien Tort Statute, Matt A. Vega

Michigan Journal of International Law

In the process of applying the ATS to foreign bribery, this Article will examine several unresolved issues surrounding this statutory grant. It will seek to (1) determine what constitutes a "violation of the law of nations," (2) refute the proposition that private defendants may be prosecuted under the ATS for only the most shocking and egregious jus cogens violations, (3) determine when and to what extent state action is required in ATS litigation, and (4) examine the limitations of the fundamental principles of international law on ATS litigation.

In Search Of "Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism", Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This article is a response to Professor Jed Shugerman’s Economic Crisis and the Rise of Judicial Elections and Judicial Review, HARVARD LAW REVIEW (2010). Professor Shugerman argues that the widespread adoption of judicial elections in the 1850’s and the embrace by the first generation of elected judges of countermajoritarian rationales for judicial review helped to effect a transition from the active, industry-building state of the early nineteenth century to the "laissez-faire constitutionalism" of the Lochner era. This response argues that Professor Shugerman overstates the causal relationship between the elected judiciary’s robust constitutional defense of "vested rights" and the iconic, if …

The Exclusionary Rule In Immigration Proceedings: Where It Was, Where It Is, Where It May Be Going, Irene Scharf

Faculty Publications

The case alerted me to the continuing issue concerning the treatment of alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights in immigration court, with this article the result of research conducted relating thereto. Beyond reviewing the relevant views of the federal courts of appeals; the administrative tribunal that handles appeals of immigration court cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and even local immigration courts; I consider whether the jurisprudence has remained static since the Supreme Court's watershed opinion on the issue about twenty-five years ago. I also offer suggestions as to how to effectively, fairly, and efficiently resolve the issues raised …

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 …

Bankruptcy Federalism: A Doctrine Askew, Margaret Howard

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Erie And Federal Criminal Courts, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

Today, low-level state and local criminal laws figure critically in federal prosecutions, serving as the initial bases for police seizures that yield evidence leading to more serious federal charges (usually involving drugs or firearms). While police resort to such laws as pretexts to stop and arrest individuals has been frequently addressed, this article provides the first analysis of how federal courts actually interpret and apply the laws. In doing so, the article reveals a surprising reality, long dismissed as a doctrinal impossibility: federal judicial use of the analytic framework of Erie v. Tompkins to resolve criminal cases.

As the article …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …

Freedom, Finality, And Federal Preemption: Seeking Expanded Judicial Review Of Arbitration Awards Under State Law After Hall Street, Brian T. Burns

Fordham Law Review

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. in March 2008, the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), parties to an arbitration agreement may not contractually expand the grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award beyond the grounds enumerated in the FAA. In dicta, however, the Court expressly left open the possibility that parties nonetheless may obtain expanded review by relying on state arbitration law, rather than the FAA. This Note examines the availability of contractually expanded review under state law and addresses the question of whether, in light of Hall …

Article I, Article Iii, And The Limits Of Enumeration, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Article I, Section 8 and Article Ill, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution deploy parallel strategies for constraining the power of the federal government. They enumerate powers that the national legislature and judiciary, respectively, are permitted to exercise and thereby implicitly prohibit these two branches of government from exercising powers not enumerated. According to conventional thinking, this strategy has failed in connection with Article I and succeeded in connection with Article III. That is, it is widely acknowledged that Congress routinely exercises powers that are difficult to square with the Article I enumeration; but it is commonly thought that the …

How States Can Protect Their Policies In Federal Class Actions, Lucas Watkins

Campbell Law Review

The role of the states in our constitutional system is to protect their citizens and supply tort liability. Where federal law does not preempt state systems of liability, state law supplies the tort- and contract-based rules that govern the vast majority of the relationships in our society and economy. Some think that national rules of liability, or new national choice-of-law rules, should supplant today's state-by-state regulation. But until Congress enacts a comprehensive regulatory scheme, state law will control the causes of action that plaintiffs can bring. And the state law that controls the cause should control the way that the …

Litigation Strategies For Dealing With The Indigent Defense Crisis, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The indigent defense delivery system in the United States is in a state of crisis. Public defenders routinely handle well over 1,000 cases a year, more than three times the number of cases that the American Bar Association says one attorney can handle effectively. As a result, many defendants sit in jail for months before even speaking to their court-appointed lawyers. And when defendants do meet their attorneys, they are often disappointed to learn that these lawyers are too overwhelmed to provide adequate representation. With public defenders or assigned counsel representing more than 80% of criminal defendants nationwide, the indigent …

Structure And Precedent, Jeffrey C. Dobbins

Michigan Law Review

The standard model of vertical precedent is part of the deep structure of our legal system. Under this model, we rarely struggle with whether a given decision of a court within a particular hierarchy is potentially binding at all. When Congress or the courts alter the standard structure and process offederal appellate review, however, that standard model of precedent breaks down. This Article examines several of these unusual appellate structures and highlights the difficulties associated with evaluating the precedential effect of decisions issued within them. For instance, when Congress consolidates challenges to agency decision making in a single federal circuit, …

New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …

A Structural Vision Of Habeas Corpus, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

As scholars have recognized elsewhere in public law, there is no hermetic separation between individual rights and structural or systemic processes of governance. To be sure, it is often helpful to focus on a question as primarily implicating one or the other of those categories. But a full appreciation of a structural rule includes an understanding of its relationship to individuals, and individual rights can both derive from and help shape larger systemic practices. The separation of powers principle, for example, is clearly a matter of structure, but much of its virtue rests on its promise to help protect the …

Substantive Canons And Faithful Agency, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

Federal courts have long employed substantive canons of construction in the interpretation of statutes. For example, they apply the rule of lenity, which directs that ambiguous criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant, and the avoidance canon, which directs that statutes be interpreted in a manner that prevents the court from having to address serious constitutional questions. They also apply so-called “clear statement” rules — for example, absent a clear statement from Congress, a federal court will not interpret a statute to abrogate state sovereign immunity. While some commentators have attempted to rationalize these and other substantive canons …

The Pleading Problem In Antitrust Cases And Beyond, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

In its Twombly decision the Supreme Court held that an antitrust complaint failed because its allegations did not include enough “factual matter” to justify proceeding to discovery. Two years later the Court extended this new pleading standard to federal complaints generally. Twombly’s broad language has led to a broad rewriting of federal pleading doctrine.

Naked market division conspiracies such as the one pled in Twombly must be kept secret because antitrust enforcers will prosecute them when they are detected. This inherent secrecy, which the Supreme Court did not discuss, has dire consequences for pleading if too much factual specificity …

Who Watches The Watchmen? 'Vigilant Doorkeeping,' The Alien Tort Statute, & Possible Reform, Keith A. Petty

Keith A. Petty

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) allows alien plaintiffs to file civil actions in U.S. district courts for torts violating the law of nations or U.S. treaties. After the 2nd Circuit’s Filartiga decision in 1980, the debate began as to whether the ATS was a useful tool against human rights violators or an intrusion into U.S. foreign relations. In 2004, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain resolved some of the questions left open by Filartiga.

Sosa concluded that ATS claims must be limited to law of nations violations as well defined as those recognized in 1789. The Court tasked the …