Law Commons^™

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.

United States Implementation Of The International Criminal Court: Towards The Federalism Of Free Nations, Lauren F. Redman

Lauren F Redman

The political winds are changing, and a more liberal United States government may very well be receptive to ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The nature and scope of international law are also changing. Individuals are sharing responsibility with states for grave breaches of international law, and globalization has resulted in a marked increase in international tribunals deciding disputes affecting individual interests. Despite these trends, Americans have been wary of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Federal courts principles borrowed from the legal process school can and should be implemented to govern relations between ICC and domestic …

Privatizing Bans On Abortion: Eviscerating Constitutional Rights Through Tort Remedies, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

State governments have devised a new means to evade the Constitution. Their new means is to enact tort statutes that, in effect, ban constitutionally protected conduct. In particular, some states have made the provision of an abortion a tort for which there can be no defense and no cap on the amount of liability. These states have made performing an abortion essentially illegal. Yet, because tort statutes are enforced through private litigation, rather than public prosecution, a number of courts have held that they lack jurisdiction to review these laws. Federal courts have concluded that standing doctrine and state sovereign …

Wartime Process: A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Remove Issues From The Federal Courts, John C. Yoo, Jesse Choper

John C Yoo

Many have long debated whether Congress may strip the federal courts completely of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases. Until the last few years, these debates met the very definition of academic. Aside from two statutes, Congress had never engaged in clear removal of cases from the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts. That changed with the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, which extended the federal writ of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants detained at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Station. In response to Rasul, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which forbade any …

Wartime Process: A Dialogue On Congressional Power To Remove Issues From The Federal Courts, John C. Yoo, Jesse Choper

Jesse H Choper

Many have long debated whether Congress may strip the federal courts completely of jurisdiction over certain classes of cases. Until the last few years, these debates met the very definition of academic. Aside from two statutes, Congress had never engaged in clear removal of cases from the Supreme Court or the lower federal courts. That changed with the Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, which extended the federal writ of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants detained at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Station. In response to Rasul, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which forbade any …

Saving Special Places: Trends And Challenges With Protecting Public Lands [Outline], Robert B. Keiter

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

7 pages.

Includes bibliographical references

"Robert B. Keiter, Wallace Stegner Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law"

Constructing The Co-Ed Military, Elaine Donnelly

Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy

During a pre-launch test of the Apollo One spacecraft,1 an electrical spark ignited the pure-oxygen atmosphere inside the cramped capsule, killing astronauts Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chafee.2 Critics demanded to know why the mechanical and electrical engineers of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) failed to recognize the inherent dangers of operating in a pure-oxygen environment. To ensure that the intent of Congress is carried out with regard to homosexuals in the military, the Secretary of Defense should: * Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration's enforcement regulations, known as "Don't Ask, …

What's Left Standing? Feca Citizen Suits And The Battle For Judicial Review, Kimberly L. Wehle

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses standing to sue the FEC with two principal objectives. First, it attempts to frame the doctrinal inconsistencies between Lujan and Akins that have given rise to ongoing FECA standing litigation and concludes that the Supreme Court should acknowledge its repudiation of Lujan in cases seeking election-related information. Second, it explores the question whether courts may be statutorily required to consider citizen challenges to FEC enforcement actions as a matter of justiciability theory in the first instance, and concludes that courts should turn to the oft-overlooked Akins decision in lieu of Lujan in reviewing suits brought under citizen-suit …

Punish Or Surveil, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This Article endeavors to paint a fuller picture of previous practice and present options than is often present in debates about the United States' antiterrorism measures. It begins by describing practices in place before the campaign launched after September 11, 2001. The Article focuses on punishment, the first prong of the policy long used to combat threats against the United States. Ordinary civilian and military courts stood ready to punish persons found guilty at public trials that adhered to fairness standards, and national security interests not infrequently were advanced through such courts. That is not to say that courts were …

Discovering Discovery: Non-Party Access To Pretrial Information In The Federal Courts 1938-2006, Seymour Moskowitz

Law Faculty Publications

In the modern era, the pretrial process is critical to the disposition of almost all litigation. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. Those which are contested at trial and upon appeal are often decided upon the results of the information gather before trial. This is true in both private litigation and in public interest cases where "private attorneys general" may only function effectively with court-enforced discovery. Despite the significance of the Article III courts to our society, transparency in their processes for resolving civil disputes has been severely compromised. Threats to openness emanate from multiple sources. This …

Reassessing The Purposes Of Federal Question Jurisdiction, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

For ages, judges and legal academics have claimed that federal question jurisdiction has three purposes: to provide litigants with a judge experienced in federal law, to protect litigants from state court hostility toward federal claims, and to preserve uniformity in federal law. Because federal claims, for the most part, have always been cognizable in state courts, these purposes imply that state courts are less experienced, more hostile, and more likely to adjudicate federal law in ways that decrease the uniformity of federal law. Despite the ongoing allegiance to this conception of federal question jurisdictionand by implication, state court adjudication of …

The State Secrets Privilege And Separation Of Powers, Amanda Frost

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has repeatedly invoked the state secrets privilege in cases challenging executive conduct in the war on terror, arguing that the very subject matter of these cases must be kept secret to protect national security. The executive's recent assertion of the privilege is unusual, in that it is seeking dismissal, pre-discovery, of all challenges to the legality of specific executive branch programs, rather than asking for limits on discovery in individual cases. This essay contends that the executive's assertion of the privilege is therefore akin to a claim that the courts lack jurisdiction to …

A Necessary And Proper Role For Federal Courts In Prison Reform: The Benjamin V. Malcolm Consentdecrees, Harold Baer Jr., Arminda Bepko

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Managing Electronic Discovery: Views From The Judges, Lee H. Rosenthal, James C. Francis, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Certification From Abstention In Diversity Cases: Postponement Versus Abdication Of The Duty To Exercise Jurisdiction, Deborah Challener

Journal Articles

This Article argues that a federal court does not abdicate its duty to exercise its jurisdiction when it certifies a question in a diversity case; instead, the court merely postpones the exercise of its jurisdiction. Thus, federal courts need not limit certification in diversity cases to exceptional circumstances.

Closing The Gap: Interpreting Federal Rule Of Evidence 408 To Exclude Evidence Of Offers And Statements Made By Prosecutors During Plea Negotiations, Mark T. Pavkov

Case Western Reserve Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Kerr Principle, State Action, And Legal Rights, Donald J. Herzog

Articles

A Baltimore library refused to admit Louise Kerr to a training program because she was black. Not that it had anything against blacks, but its patrons did. When Kerr launched a civil suit against the library alleging a violation of equal protection of the laws, the courts credited the library's claim that it had no racist purpose, but Kerr still prevailed-even though the case occurred before Title VII and Brown v. Board of Education. Here a neutral and generally applicable rule ("serve the patrons"), when coupled with particular facts about private parties (the white patrons dislike blacks), yielded an …

Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional?, Ryan W. Scott, David R. Stras

Articles by Maurer Faculty

With burgeoning caseloads and persistent vacancies in many federal courts, senior judges play a vital role in the continued well-being of our federal judiciary. Despite the importance of their participation in the judicial process, however, senior judges raise a host of constitutional concerns that have escaped the notice of scholars and courts. Many of the problems originate with recent changes to the statute authorizing federal judges to elect senior status, including a 1989 law that permits senior judges to fulfill their statutory responsibilities by performing entirely nonjudicial work. Others arise from the ambiguity of the statutory scheme itself, which seems …

When Worlds Collide: Federal Construction Of State Institutional Competence, Marcia L. Mccormick

All Faculty Scholarship

The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already analyzed the law at issue, either in a separate case or in the very situation before the federal court. In every one of those cases, the federal courts must decide whether to defer to the state court analysis and, if so, how much. The federal courts will often defer, but many times have not done so, and they rarely explain the reasons for the departures they make. While this lack of transparency gives the federal courts the greatest amount of discretion and power, it …

Comment: The Ninth Amendment: A Constitutional Challenge To Corporal Punishment In Public Schools, David R. Hague

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court's refusal to resolve the conflict over corporal punishment in public schools perpetuates the uncertainty over children and parents' legal rights. The use of corporal punishment in public schools unconstitutionally abridges parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children because it forces parents to accept the emotional and physical marks that corporal punishment leaves on their children. In 1977, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of corporal punishment in Ingraham v. Wright. The Court held that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment applied only to criminal punishments and thus provided no protection against …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

The Puzzle Of Complete Preemption, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Part I introduces the central themes in the law of federal question jurisdiction. It describes the prevailing interpretations of the constitutional and statutory texts governing the federal courts' jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving questions of federal law, and it explores the reasons for the establishment of such jurisdiction. This Part also introduces the well-pleaded complaint rule and examines the reasons for its adoption by the Supreme Court. Part II provides a detailed account of complete preemption doctrine, under which parties are permitted to usher state-law claims into the federal courts despite the apparent absence of any federal question on the …

The Regulation Of Judicial Ethics In The Federal System: A Peek Behind Closed Doors, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

Ethical issues involving federal judges have been much in the news recently. Among other developments, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to consider impeaching a federal district judge; the Judicial Conference of the United States announced two major policy initiatives; and a committee chaired by Justice Stephen Breyer issued an in-depth report on the operation of the judicial misconduct statutes.

This article addresses two aspects of federal judicial ethics. The first involves conflict of interest and disqualification. Under the law, a federal judge is disqualified from hearing a case if (among other circumstances) the judge's impartiality "might reasonably be …

Justice O'Connor And 'The Threat To Judicial Independence': The Cowgirl Who Cried Wolf?, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

Sandra Day O'Connor retired from active service on the United States Supreme Court in early 2006. As her principal "retirement project," she has taken on the task of defending the independence of the judiciary. In speeches, op-ed articles, and public interviews, she has warned that "we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies." Justice O'Connor has done the nation a service by bringing the subject of judicial independence to center stage and by calling attention to the important values it serves. Unfortunately, however, in describing the threats to that independence, she …

National Interests, Foreign Injuries, And Federal Forum Non Conveniens, Elizabeth T. Lear

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the federal forum non conveniens doctrine subverts critical national interests in international torts cases. For over a quarter century, federal judges have assumed that foreign injury cases, particularly those filed by foreign plaintiffs, are best litigated abroad. This assumption is incorrect. Foreign injuries caused by multinational corporations who tap the American market implicate significant national interests in compensation and/or deterrence. Federal judges approach the forum non conveniens decision as if it were a species of choice of law, as opposed to a choice of forum question. Analyzing the cases from an adjudicatory perspective reveals that in …