Law Commons^™

Federalism Doctrines And Abortion Cases: A Response To Professor Fallon, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

This Essay is a response to Professor Richard Fallon's article, If Roe Were Overruled: Abortion and the Constitution in a Post-Roe World. In that article, Professor Fallon argues that if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade, courts might well remain in the abortion-umpiring business. This Essay proposes a refinement on that analysis. It argues that in a post-Roe world courts would not necessarily subject questions involving abortion to the same kind of constitutional analysis in which the Court has engaged in Roe and its progeny, that is, balancing a state's interest in protecting life against a pregnant …

In Defense Of Implied Injunction Relief In Constitutional Cases, John F. Preis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

If Congress has neither authorized nor prohibited a suit to enforce the Constitution, may the federal courts create one nonetheless? At present, the answer mostly turns on the form of relief sought: if the plaintiff seeks damages, the Supreme Court will normally refuse relief unless Congress has specifically authorized it; in contrast, if the plaintiff seeks an injunction, the Court will refuse relief only if Congress has specifically barred it. These contradictory approaches naturally invite arguments for reform. Two common arguments—one based on the historical relationship between law and equity and the other based on separation of powers principles—could quite …

Horizontal Erie And The Presumption Of Forum Law, Michael S. Green

Michael S. Green

According to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny, a federal
court interpreting state law must decide as the state’s supreme
court would. In this Article, I argue that a state court interpreting
the law of a sister state is subject to the same obligation. It must
decide as the sister state’s supreme court would.

Horizontal Erie is such a plausible idea that one might think it is
already established law. But the Supreme Court has in fact given
state courts significant freedom to misinterpret sister-state law. And
state courts have taken advantage of this freedom, by routinely presuming
that …

Reverse Advisory Opinions, Neal Devins, Saikrishna B. Prakash

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Statutes In Common Law Courts, Jeffrey Pojanowski

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court teaches that federal courts, unlike their counterparts in the states, are not general common law courts. Nevertheless, a perennial point of contention among federal law scholars is whether and how a court’s common law powers affect its treatment of statutes. Textualists point to federal courts’ lack of common law powers to reject purposivist statutory interpretation. Critics of textualism challenge this characterization of federal courts’ powers, leveraging a more robust notion of the judicial power to support purposivist or dynamic interpretation. This disagreement has become more important in recent years with the emergence of a refreshing movement in …

Changed Circumstances: The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And The Future Of Institutional Reform Litigation After Horne V. Flores, Catherine Y. Kim

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Surveillance Society And The Third-Party Privacy Problem, Shaun B. Spencer

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can Federal Courts Exercise Jurisdiction Over State Law Malpractice Claims Arising Out Of Patent Law Disputes?, Isaac C. Ta

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1338, federal courts generally have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal civil law. Specifically, under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), federal courts have jurisdiction over cases brought under federal patent laws. As with any legal proceeding, the potential for legal malpractice as it relates to patent issues (e.g., proper patent filing) is very real. However, unlike patent law proceedings, legal malpractice is governed by state law.' When the two causes of action are intertwined, federal and state courts are presented with the issue of which court possesses proper jurisdiction. Some argue federal courts can properly exercise …

“Dealing With The Appellate Caseload Crisis”: The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee Revisited, Roger J. Miner

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Thinking, Big And Small, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.