Law Commons^™

Is The Statutory 60-Day Deadline For Filing A Petition For Review Of A Final Mspb Order Jurisdictional?, Anne Marie Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

Case at a Glance: The Department of Defense (DOD) furloughed employee Stuart R. Harrow in 2013. Harrow timely challenged DOD’s decision before an administrative judge, who affirmed it. Harrow timely appealed the judge’s decision to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB or “Board”), which could not act on the appeal for over five years because it lacked a quorum. On May 11, 2022, the MSPB issued a final order, affirming the judge’s decision. However, Harrow did not learn of the decision until August 30. Harrow promptly filed a petition to review the Board’s order with the Federal Circuit, which denied …

Post V. Trinity Health-Michigan: Does 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Offer Protection From Disability Discrimination?, Joseph D. Burdine

Seattle University Law Review SUpra

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Reach Of Legal Process – Lessons From United States V Rafiekian, Vivian M. Williams

Publications and Research

The influence of foreign agents on the domestic affairs of countries is now a major issue in global affairs. This issue gained significance after foreign influence was blamed for a massive protest demanding fair election, rocked Moscow in 2011. It has been amplified after Russian involvement was cited for Donald Trump’s surprised election as President of the United States in 2016. There is now great anxiety among nations that foreign actors could influence electoral outcomes. Consequently, the past decade has seen a proliferation of laws regulating the operation of foreign agents within a country. Aggressive enforcement of Foreign Agents laws …

The Belt And Road Initiative: Conflict Of Laws And Dispute Resolution, Veltrice Tan

Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy

Purpose: This paper aims to determine the adaptability of China’s legal system in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China. Design/methodology/approach: Academic articles, case law and books are examined as are relevant reports by various regulatory authorities and organizations. Findings: Historically, Chinese courts have strictly adhered to “de facto reciprocity”, which made it difficult for foreign judgements to be recognized and enforced in China. Fortunately, Chinese courts have since abandoned their rigid adherence to de facto reciprocity, and have instead, used flexible tests of reciprocity such as de jure reciprocity, reciprocal commitment and reciprocal understand/consensus. Accordingly, this would facilitate the …

Shareholder Primacy Versus Shareholder Accountability, William Wilson Bratton

Articles

When corporations inflict injuries in the course of business, shareholders wielding environmental, social, and governance ("ESG") principles can, and now sometimes do, intervene to correct the matter. In the emerging fact pattern, corporate social accountability expands out of its historic collectivized frame to become an internal subject matter-a corporate governance topic. As a result, shareholder accountability surfaces as a policy question for the first time. The Big Three index fund managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, responded to the accountability question with ESG activism. In so doing, they defected against corporate legal theory's central tenet, shareholder primacy. Shareholder primacy builds …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

“[T]he legislative, executive, and judicial powers, of every well-constructed government, are co-extensive with each other . . . [T]he judicial department may receive from the Legislature the power of construing any . . . law [which the Legislature may constitutionally make].” Chief Justice Marshall relied on this axiom in Osborn v. Bank of the United States to stress the breadth of the federal judicial power: The federal courts must have the potential power to adjudicate any claim based on any law Congress has the power to enact. In recent years, however, the axiom has sometimes operated in the opposite direction: …

The Role Of U.S. Government Regulatioms, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

Provides detailed coverage of information resources on U.S. Government information resources for federal regulations. Features historical background on these regulations, details on the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations, includes information on individuals can participate in the federal regulatory process by commenting on proposed agency regulations via https://regulations.gov/, describes the role of presidential executive orders, refers to recent and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases involving federal regulations, and describes current congressional legislation seeking to give Congress greater involvement in the federal regulatory process.

To Democratize Algorithms, Ngozi Okidegbe

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictions increasingly employ algorithms in public sector decisionmaking. Facing public outcry about the use of such technologies, jurisdictions have begun to increase democratic participation in the processes by which algorithms are procured, constructed, implemented, used, and overseen. But what problem is the current approach to democratization meant to solve? Policymakers have tended to view the problem as the absence of public deliberation: agencies and courts often use algorithms without public knowledge or input. To redress this problem, jurisdictions have turned to deliberative approaches designed to foster transparency and public debate.

This Article contends that the current approach to democratization is …

A Further Look At A Hague Convention On Concurrent Proceedings, Paul Herrup, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The current project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has reached a critical juncture that requires careful consideration of the terms that delineate the scope of the proposed convention. Work to date has not followed the mandate of the Council on General Affairs and Policy to produce a convention that would deal with concurrent proceedings, understood as including pure parallel proceedings and related actions. In two previous articles we have addressed the practical needs that should be addressed by the concurrent proceedings project and the general architecture of such a convention. The process is now mired in terminological …

The Advisory Jurisdiction Of The Constitutional Tribunal Under Article 100 Of The Constitution, Don Jia Hao Ho

Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon)

Singapore has a Constitutional Tribunal as provided for under Article 100 of the Constitution. The Tribunal is vested with advisory jurisdiction which ordinary courts do not have. This article explores the constitutional basis for the Tribunal’s existence, jurisdictional issues surrounding the Tribunal, as well as the legal effect of the Tribunal’s opinion. Moreover, this article evaluates the continued relevance of the Tribunal. In doing so, a comparative approach is adopted where appropriate.

Stephen’S Prudent Person And The Standard Of Proof In Indian Evidence Act Jurisdictions, Siyuan Chen

Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon)

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872 remains on the statute books of many Commonwealth jurisdictions. The contents of the statute have also remained largely intact. Unsurprisingly, then, there has been a growing chasm between what the statute provides for and how the common law rules on evidence have developed. However, the statute’s treatment of the concept of standard of proof has arguably been more sophisticated than what the courts have given credit for. In this article, it is argued that a return to the statute’s original conception of standard of proof will go some way in alleviating …

Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Framing—the subtle use of context to suggest a conclusion—is a dubious alternative to direct argumentation. Both the brilliance and the bane of marketing, framing also creeps into supposedly objective analysis. Law offers several examples, but a lesser known one is International Shoe’s two-part jurisdictional test. The framing occurs in the underscoring of defendant’s due process rights contrasted with plaintiff’s “interests” which are often dependent on governmental interests. This equation ignores, both rhetorically and analytically, the injured party’s centuries-old rights to—not interests in—a remedy in an open and adequate forum.

Even within the biased frame, the test generally works, if not …

The Court And The Private Plaintiff, Elizabeth Beske

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Two seemingly irreconcilable story arcs have emerged from the Supreme Court over the past decade. First, the Court has definitively taken itself out of the business of creating private rights of action under statutes and the Constitution, decrying such moves as relics of an “ancient regime.” Thus, the Supreme Court has slammed the door on its own ability to craft rights of action under federal statutes and put Bivens, which recognized implied constitutional remedies, into an ever-smaller box. The Court has justified these moves as necessary to keep judges from overstepping their bounds and wading into the province of the …

An Alternative To The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Bruce Ledewitz

Law Faculty Publications

One of the most momentous actions taken by the United States Supreme Court in the last term was not deciding a case but granting review at the end of the term in Moore v. Harper, the North Carolina congressional redistricting case. This is the case in which the Supreme Court appears likely to adopt some version of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine (Doctrine). In this essay, I will describe the actual case and the Doctrine. But I will also be offering an alternative to the Doctrine, one that I believe achieves some of the goals that the Justices who …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors & Indian Law Experts In Support Of Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Smith V. United States, Barbara L. Creel, Verónica Gonzales-Zamora, Marc-Tizoc Gonzaléz

Faculty Scholarship

The decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, permitting the application of state criminal law to punish a tribal member whose alleged criminal conduct occurred on an Indian reservation and caused no harm to another person—solely based on the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13 is contrary to numerous treaties, acts of Congress, and foundational principles
of tribal sovereignty as construed and upheld by this Court’s federal Indian law jurisprudence. Allowing the Ninth Circuit decision to stand renders express
congressional authorizations and limitations on federal and state criminal jurisdiction over Indians in …

Service Out Under The New Rules Of Court, Ian Mah, Aaron Yoong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The new Rules of Court 2021 seek to provide a more accessible and efficient justice system. The extensiveness of the overhaul, however, brings with it as much unfamiliarity as excitement. This legislation comment examines the changes in the provisions governing service out of jurisdiction and argues that the textual changes also effect substantive changes to how the law is applied. This comment also explores the related issues on the grant of Mareva injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings under the new Rules of Court 2021.

Jurisdiction Over Non-Eu Defendants: The Brussels I Article 79 Review, Ronald A. Brand

Book Chapters

When the original EU Brussels I Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments was “recast” in 2011, the Commission recommended that the application of its direct jurisdiction rules apply to all defendants in Member State courts, and not just to defendants from other Member States. This approach was not adopted, but set for reconsideration through Article 79 of the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation, which requires that the European Commission report in 2022 on the possible application of the direct jurisdiction rules of the Regulation to all defendants. Without such a change, the Recast Regulation continues to allow each Member …

M/S Bremen V Zapata Off -Shore Company: Us Common Law Affirmation Of Party Autonomy, Ronald A. Brand

Book Chapters

In the 1972 decision in M/S Bremen v Zapata Off -Shore Company, the U.S. Supreme Court brought together the development of doctrines dealing with party autonomy in choice of court and forum non conveniens. Especially when considered alongside developments favoring arbitration clauses in U.S. courts, the case provides a rich study of conflicts of laws jurisprudence in the twentieth century. This chapter begins with a discussion of fundamental elements of the development of party autonomy in U.S. law and the historical context of the law prior to The Bremen. A brief mention of how one prominent political family …

Interagency Litigation Outside Article Iii, Adam Crews

Connecticut Law Review

For over seventy years, the Supreme Court has said that a justiciable controversy can exist when one agency in the federal executive branch sues another. Although this raises intuitive concerns under both Article II (relating to presidential control) and Article III (relating to standing), scholars and judges have paid scant attention to the constitutional foundation for interagency litigation. Of those who have explored the topic, defenders and opponents alike agree on one thing: the foundation—or lack of one—depends on Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.

That is mistaken. A better approach to understand interagency litigation is to step outside Article III and …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

The Failed Idea Of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History, Susan D. Carle

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This essay examines the intellectual history of the idea of judicial restraint, starting with the early debates among the US Constitution’s founding generation. In the late nineteenth century, law professor James Bradley Thayer championed the concept and passed it on to his students and others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter, who modified and applied it based on the jurisprudential preoccupations of a different era. In a masterful account, Brad Snyder examines Justice Frankfurter’s attempt to put the idea into practice. Although Frankfurter arguably made a mess of it, he passed the idea of …

Self-Intervention, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

You cannot intervene in your own case, duh! Yet the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on just this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) allow state legislative leaders, seeking to represent the state’s sovereign interest, intervene when the attorney general is already representing the state’s sovereign interest. In this article, I contend that the text, history, and practice of Rule 24(a)(2) prohibits such “self-intervention.” I then explore how the fictive approach to state immunity established in Ex parte Young causes this confusion, while concluding that the doctrine, properly understood, focuses on real, not nominal, parties-in-interest. Next, I …

Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis, Michael K. Velchik, Jeffery Zhang

Articles

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the eastern half of Oklahoma was Indian country. This bombshell decision was contrary to settled expectations and government practices spanning 111 years. It also was representative of an increasing trend of federal courts recognizing Indian sovereignty over large and economically significant areas of the country, even where Indians have not asserted these claims in many years and where Indians form a small minority of the inhabitants.

Although McGirt and similar cases fundamentally turn on questions of statutory and treaty interpretation, they are often couched in consequence-based arguments about the good …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Fairness Factor(S), Megan La Belle

Scholarly Articles

It has been more than seventy-five years since the Supreme Court decided International Shoe Co. v. Washington, yet questions surrounding the personal jurisdiction doctrine loom large. Over the past decade, the Roberts Court has issued a handful of personal jurisdiction opinions, including Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, a case decided in 2021 that addressed an issue related to specific jurisdiction. What is more, courts across the country, including several state supreme courts, have been grappling with the question whether a corporation’s registration to do business constitutes consent to personal jurisdiction in that state. This …

In Search Of The First-Round Knockout A Rule 12(B) Primer, Kate Rogers, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Boxing enthusiasts define success not just by wins and losses but also by knockouts. Many of the greatest fighters in the history of boxing—Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, and Sugar Ray Robinson—were known for their knockout punching power. Within the category of knockouts, the gold standard is the first-round knockout, the moment when stunned fans watch a fighter take the opponent out of the contest before either of them has broken a sweat.

Jurisdiction And The Moral Impact Theory Of Law, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

Positivists and interpretivists (Dworkinians) might accept that conceptual facts about the law—facts about the content of the concept of law—can obtain in the absence of communities with law practices. But they would deny that legal facts can obtain in such communities’ absence. Under the moral impact theory, by contrast, legal facts can precede all communities with law practices. I identify a set of legal facts in private international law—the law of jurisdiction—that concerns when a community’s law practices can, and cannot, have the legal effects that the practices claim to have. This law is noncommunitarian, in the sense …

When Judges Were Enjoined: Text And Tradition In The Federal Review Of State Judicial Action, Alexandra Nickerson, Kellen R. Funk

Faculty Scholarship

It is virtually a tenet of modern federal jurisdiction that judges, at least when they are acting as judges, are inappropriate defendants in civil suits. Yet on rare but salient occasions, state judges might be the sole or primary party responsible for violating the constitutional rights of citizens, for instance by imposing excessive bail or by opening their courtrooms to oppressive private suits like those under Texas’s Senate Bill 8 bounty regime. In such cases, injunctive relief against judicial officers may be the only or most effective remedy against constitutional violations, but federal courts from the trial level up to …

The Antiregulatory Arsenal, Antidemocratic Can(N)Ons, And The Waters Wars, William W. Buzbee

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Clean Water Act has become a centerpiece in an enduring multifront battle against both environmental regulation and federal regulatory power in all of its settings. This Article focuses on the emergence, elements, and linked uses of an antiregulatory arsenal now central to battles over what are federally protected “waters of the United States.” This is the key jurisdictional hook for CWA jurisdiction, and hence, logically, has become the heart of CWA contestation. The multi-decade battle over Waters protections has both drawn on emergent antiregulatory moves and generated new weapons in this increasingly prevalent and powerful antiregulatory arsenal. This array …

Running On Empty: Ford V. Montana And The Folly Of Minimum Contacts, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictional contests are in disarray. Criticisms date back to the issuance of International Shoe Co. v. Washington but the breakdown may be best illustrated in two recent Supreme Court opinions, the first rejecting California’s “sliding scale” that mixes general and specific contacts, the second using the discredited sliding scale to hold Ford amenable in states where accidents occurred.

California’s sliding scale is one variety of the contacts-relatedness tests, used in lower courts to have general contacts bolster weaker specific contacts. Some states—Montana and Minnesota for example—use the opposite extreme requiring a causal connection in defendant’s forum contacts, often using foreseeability …