Courts Commons^™

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Defying Gravity: The Development Of Standards In The International Prosecution Of International Atrocity Crimes, Matthew H. Charity

Faculty Scholarship

The International Criminal Court (the “ICC”), now one decade old, is still in the process of setting norms as to scope, jurisdiction, and other issues. One issue that has thus far defied resolution is a key issue of jurisdiction: the place of complementarity in deciding whether certain criminal issues impacting international standards or interests should be decided before the ICC or national tribunals. Although the Rome Statute crystallizes definitions of core international crimes that may be tried before the ICC, the process of determining whether to leave jurisdiction with the nation or allowing jurisdiction to the ICC continues to lack …

Constitutional Remedies For Underinclusive Statutes: A Critical Appraisal Of Heckler V. Mathews, Bruce K. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The power of the federal courts to remedy injuries caused by constitutional violations is a fundamental assumption of our constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court's equal protection decisions of the past generation illustrate the extent to which we take this power completely for granted. When confronted with a statute that denies a litigant's fifth or fourteenth amendment right to equal treatment, the Court has rarely limited itself to a simple declaration that the statute is unconstitutional. Such declarations, rather, have been routinely accompanied by awards of often substantial relief to the persons injured by the unconstitutional inequality. The author analyzes Heckler …