Jurisdiction Commons^™

Signed, Sealed, Delivered, And ?: The Correlation Between Policy Areas, Signing, And Legal Ratification Of Organization Of American States’ Treaties By Member States., Alexandra R. Harrington

ExpressO

Abstract: Signed, Sealed, Delivered, and ?: The Correlation Between Policy areas, Signing, and Legal Ratification of Organization of American States’ Treaties by Member States.

Like any organization, the Organization of American States’ ability to affect lasting policy changes through treaties is only as strong as the will of the federal legislative bodies of its member states. No matter how lofty or well-meaning the OAS’s goals in any area or matter addressed by a treaty, or the number of OAS member states which sign onto a treaty reflecting these goals, under the OAS Charter, and the federal constitutions of most member …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

The Demise Of Federal Takings Litigation, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's …

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

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

ExpressO

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 …

Certifying Questions To Congress, Amanda Frost

ExpressO

As many academics and some judges have openly admitted, no technique of statutory interpretation can settle every question of statutory ambiguity. Sometimes Congress enacts legislation containing gaps or inconsistencies that cannot be resolved through the application of a canon of construction or other interpretive rule. This article proposes an alternative approach for these hard cases. When a federal court is faced with a statute that leaves important issues about its application unclear – particularly issues that implicate the statute’s constitutionality – the court could stay the case and refer the question to Congress, much in the same way that courts …

Should The Supreme Court Fear Congress?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Questioning Quirin, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Louis Fisher's new work, Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law3 (Nazi Saboteurs), and his valuable contribution to illuminating Ex parte Quirin merit scrutiny. In this Review, I first descriptively assess Nazi Saboteurs. The Review then treats the monograph's numerous beneficial features and ascertains that it enhances understanding of the important decision in Quirin. I conclude with several recommendations for future analysis of Quirin's impact.

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The Due Process Clause with its focus on a defendant's liberty interest has become the key, if not only, limitation on a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. This due process jurisdictional limitation is universally assumed to apply with equal force to alien defendants as to domestic defendants. With few exceptions, scholars do not distinguish between the two. Neither do the courts. Countless cases assume that foreigners have all the rights of United States citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction.

But is this assumption sound? This Article explores the uncritical assumption that the same due process considerations apply …

Jurisdiction And The Internet: Returning To Traditional Principles To Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Courts have been evaluating the issue of personal jurisdiction based on Internet or "network-mediated" contacts for some time. The U.S. Supreme Court has remained silent on this issue, permitting the federal appeals courts to develop standards for determining when personal jurisdiction based on network-mediated contacts is appropriate. Unfortunately, the circuit approaches-which emphasize a Web site's "interactivity" and "target audience" -are flawed because they are premised on an outdated view of Internet activity as uncontrollably ubiquitous. This view has led courts to depart from traditional jurisdictional analysis and impose elevated and misguided jurisdictional standards. This article argues that courts should reinstitute …

The Commerce Power And Criminal Punishment: Presumption Of Constitutionality Or Presumption Of Innocence?, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

The Constitution requires that the facts that expose an individual to criminal punishment be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken pains to ensure that legislatures cannot evade the requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and jury presentation through artful statutory drafting. Yet current Commerce Clause jurisprudence permits Congress to do just that. Congress can avoid application of the reasonable-doubt and jury-trial rules with respect to certain critical facts-the facts that establish the basis for federal action by linking the prohibited conduct to interstate commerce-by finding those facts itself rather …

Reshaping Federal Jurisdiction: Congress's Latest Challenge To Judicial Review, Helen Norton

Publications

This Article examines growing congressional interest in a specific legislative check on judicial power: controlling the types of cases judges are empowered to decide by expanding and/or contracting federal subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has recently sought to shape judicial power through a range of proposals that variously enlarge and compress federal subject matter jurisdiction. In 2004, for example, the House of Representatives voted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of the Allegiance. Just a few months later, the new 109th Congress undertook a groundbreaking expansion of federal subject …

Jurisdiction Stripping In Three Acts: A Three String Serenade, Caprice L. Roberts

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preclearance, Discrimination, And The Department Of Justice: The Case Of South Carolina, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Puzzle Of State Constitutions, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In a series of groundbreaking articles published over the past fifteen years, James Gardner has led the charge to make state constitutionalism a part of the constitutional law discussion more generally. His new book, Interpreting State Constitutions: A Jurisprudence of Function in a Federal System, steps beyond his study of specific issues in state constitutionalism to lay out an ambitious theory about how state constitutions should be interpreted based on their function within a federal system. Gardner's book is a significant scholarly effort to take state constitutions seriously, in a way that transcends any one jurisdiction or constitutional provision. Gardner's …

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preempting The People: The Judicial Role In Regulatory Concurrency And Its Implications For Popular Lawmaking, Theodore Ruger

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Boyakasha, Fist To Fist: Respect And The Philosophical Link With Reciprocity In International Law And Human Rights, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

Sovereignty And The American Courts At The Cocktail Party Of International Law: The Dangers Of Domestic Invocations Of Foreign And International Law, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

With increasing frequency and heightened debate, United States courts have been citing foreign and “international” law as authority for domestic decisions. This trend is inappropriate, undemocratic, and dangerous. The trend touches on fundamental concepts of sovereignty, democracy, the judicial role, and overall issues of effective governance. There are multiple problems with the judiciary’s reliance on extraterritorial and extra-constitutional foreign or international sources to guide their decisions. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw is its interference with rule of law values. To borrow from Judge Harold Levanthal, the use of international sources in judicial decision-making might be described as “the equivalent of …