Jurisdiction Commons^™

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 …

Airdropping Justice: The Constitutionality Of Service Of Process Via Non-Fungible Token, Jenifer Jackson

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Muskrat Textualism, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court decision McGirt v. Oklahoma, confirming the boundaries of the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma, was a truly rare case in which the Court turned back arguments by federal and state governments in favor of American Indian and tribal interests. For more than a century, Oklahomans had assumed that the reservation had been terminated and acted accordingly. But only Congress can terminate an Indian reservation, and it simply had never done so in the case of the Creek Reservation. Both the majority and dissenting opinions attempted to claim the mantle of textualism, but their respective analyses led to …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Madison 2.0—Applying The Constitution’S Taxing And Spending Clause To Revitalize American Federalism, Mohamed Akram Faizer

Seattle University Law Review

This article introduces the proposal entitled Madison 2.0 which calls for an enlightened federal government to enact legislation—using its broad ability to tax and spend for the general welfare—to revitalize, as opposed to undermine, American federalism. Part I discusses American Federalism today and the need for an updated approach. Part II explores the government's dysfunctional response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Part III proposes how to revitalize American federalism through the Spending Clause. Part IV discusses how to claw back funds in situations of state recalcitrance and replacing funds with a basic income. Lastly, this article concludes by explaining why the …

Drones: Where Does The National Airspace System Start?, Jason T. Lorenzon J.D.

National Training Aircraft Symposium (NTAS)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Aeronautical Vehicles (UAV), drones and Personal Aerial Vehicles (PAV) constitute the greatest technological advancement since the jet age. (Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation, October 26, 2017) This technological advancement has prompted significant public policy challenges and the need for new laws regarding navigable airspace. This proposal investigates how airspace used by drones will evolve given existing Constitutional and common law principals. These principals will influence the creation, development and modification of UAS airspace regulations by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Two critical but unanswered questions concerning the National Airspace System, are where does navigable airspace …

Black Women And Girls And The Twenty-Sixth Amendment: Constitutional Connections, Activist Intersections, And The First Wave Youth Suffrage Movement, Mae C. Quinn

Seattle University Law Review

On this 100th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment—and on the cusp of the fiftieth anniversary of the Twenty-sixth Amendment—this article seeks to expand the voting rights canon. It complicates our understanding of voting rights history in the United States, adding layers to the history of federal constitutional enfranchisement and encouraging a more intersectional telling of our suffrage story in the days ahead.

Thus, this work not only seeks to acknowledge the Twenty-sixth Amendment as important constitutional content, as was the goal of the article I wrote with my law student colleagues for a conference held at the University of Akron …

A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …

Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Ice Skating Up Hill: Constitutional Challenges To Sec Administrative Proceedings, Thomas Glassman

Thomas S Glassman

Since the inception of the Dodd-Frank Act the Securities and Exchange Commission has come under fire for its increased use of administrative proceedings in adjudicating the agency’s enforcement actions. That criticism has come to several suits in federal court claiming constitutional challenges to the system generally and most recently, the Administrative Law Judges themselves. Until June of 2015, when Hill v. the SEC took place in federal court, the Government was unbeaten in when arguing against these constitutional challenges. Hill, however found that it was likely the SEC had hired their Administrative Law Judges unconstitutionally. The SEC Administrative Law Judges …

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Written Constitution: A Short Analysis Of Warren Court, Thiago Luis Santos Sombra

Thiago Luís Santos Sombra

This essay propose an analysis about how Warren Court became one of the most particular in American History by confronting Jim Crow law, especially by applying the Bill of Rights. In this essay, we propose an analysis of how complex the unwritten Constitution is. Cases like Brown vs. Board of Education will be analyzed from a different point of view to understand the methods of the Court.

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

The Evolution Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Changing Interpretations Of The Dmca And Future Implications For Copyright Holders, Hillary A. Henderson

Hillary A Henderson

Copyright law rewards an artificial monopoly to individual authors for their creations. This reward is based on the belief that, by granting authors the exclusive right to reproduce their works, they receive an incentive and means to create, which in turn advances the welfare of the general public by “promoting the progress of science and useful arts.” Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or …

Beyond Paroline: Ensuring Meaningful Remedies For Child Pornography Victims At Home And Abroad, W. Warren H. Binford

W. Warren H. Binford

This article considers how the United States could fulfill its international treaty obligations to support the full restoration of child pornography victims in the aftermath of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Paroline v. United States. The article details how the United States provided leadership historically in creating a skeletal legal framework domestically and internationally to help combat child pornography and restore victims, and highlights how that framework is failing victims on a near-universal basis in an age dominated by technological innovation and globalization. The article proposes the adoption and implementation of effective domestic and international …

Remedial Discretion In Constitutional Adjudication, John M. Greabe

John M Greabe

Courts frequently withhold remedies for meritorious assertions of constitutional right. The practice is often unobjectionable. Indeed, it is a systemic necessity if constitutional law is to remain vibrant. Without it, judges surely would be less inclined to engage in constitutional innovation. But just as surely, the practice is not available for all types of constitutional claim. For instance, the subject of a criminal indictment is always entitled to dismissal of the charges if the statute authorizing the prosecution is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has experimented with various approaches to withholding constitutional remedies. The Warren Court embraced the practice of issuing …

The Battle For The Soul Of International Shoe, Eric H. Schepard

Eric H Schepard

In 2011, Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro repeatedly cited International Shoe v. Washington, a 1945 decision that transformed the law of personal jurisdiction. Kennedy believed that International Shoe broadly supported his position that a state may hear a suit arising from a within-state workplace injury to its citizen only if the foreign (out-of-state) corporate defendant specifically markets its products to that state. This article reexamines the jurisprudence of International Shoe’s author, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, to argue that Kennedy hijacked International Shoe’s half-buried legacy of judicial restraint. Scholars have suggested that Stone hoped …

Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton

Sarah L Brinton

The Supreme Court has erred on sovereign immunity. The current federal immunity doctrine wrongly gives Congress the exclusive authority to waive immunity (“exclusive congressional waiver”), but the Constitution mandates that Congress share the waiver power with the Court. This Article develops the doctrine of a two-way shared waiver and then explores a third possibility: the sharing of the immunity waiver power among all three branches of government.

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

John F. Preis

Privacy, Transparency & Google's Blurred Glass, Jonathan I. Ezor

Jonathan I. Ezor

No matter the context or jurisdiction, one concept underlies every view of the best practices in data privacy: transparency. The mandate to disclose what personal information is collected, how it is used, and with whom and for what purpose it is shared, is essential to enable informed consent to the collection, along with the other user rights that constitute privacy best practices. Google, which claims to support and offer transparency, is increasingly opaque about its many products and services and the information they collect for it, posing a significant privacy concern.

Teaching U.S. V. Windsor: The Defense Of Marriage Act And Its Constitutional Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Students are captivated by contemporary, high-profile Supreme Court cases. They recognize the litigants featured on the news, they debate the public policy, sociological and other real world implications of the arguments in school and their peers and parents prod them to discuss their opinions outside of class. I incorporate very recent and noteworthy Supreme Court cases in my legal studies courses with great success. My students are more engaged and prepared than when I assign a textbook chapter (students would rather track the law as it develops in real time). They tend to recall the arguments and legal theories well …

Teaching The U.S. V. Windsor Same Sex Marriage/Equal Protection/Doma Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The same sex marriage cases are proving to be the hottest of topics during a very eventful Supreme Court term. The U.S. v. Windsor case is a fitting vehicle to cover the topic. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) equal protection, (2) federalism, (3) executive discretion to defend federal laws, (4) incorporation and more.

Article Iii: Cases & Controversies - Teaching The Already V. Nike Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Nike is the market leader selling athletic shoes worldwide. Already markets its products to a smaller segment of the athletic shoe market. These two companies battled at the intersection of the intellectual property, federal court jurisdiction and constitutional law. These slides help teach the Already v. Nike Supreme Court case. These slides cover issues such as Article III cases & controversies, intellectual property rights in trademarks and patents as well as mootness and standing doctrines.

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy And Data Protection In Business: Laws And Practices (Sample Chapters), Jonathan I. Ezor

Jonathan I. Ezor

In the fields of digital privacy and data protection in the business world, effective compliance and risk management require not only knowledge of applicable laws and regulations, but at least a basic understanding of relevant technologies and the processes of the company or other organization that is collecting and/or using the personal information or monitoring behavior. This book is structured to provide a framework for law and other students to both learn the law and place it in the necessary technological and practical context, divided into topic areas such as children’s privacy, health information, governmental requirements, employee data and more. …

Less Than Meets The Eye: Anti-Discrimination And The Development Of Section 5 Enforcement And Eleventh Amendment Abrogation Law Since City Of Boerne V. Flores, Justin Schwartz

Justin Schwartz

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment since City of Boerne has raised the bar for Congress to pass anti discrimination legislation and made it far more difficult for plaintiffs to sue the states and state agencies. I show, by close analysis of the Court's case law on state sovereign immunity and Congress' Section 5 power to abrogate that immunity, that this is a misreading.

As the jurisprudence developed from Boerne, Kimel (age discrimination) and Garrett (disability discrimination in employment) to Hibbs (sex discrimination) and Lane (disability discrimination in public accommodations), the Court has …

The Lingering Influence Of Richard Ii And Lord Coke In The American Admiralty, Graydon S. Staring

Graydon S. Staring

It must be fair to say that a useful commercial and legal regime should be spread as wide as its usefulness, with as few artificial and irrelevant barriers as possible. All of our irrelevant barriers have been discredited in various situations, but two of them, viz. as to contracts made on land or to be performed in part on land, remain anomalously in two irrational and inconvenient applications. As they have no statutory sanction, they can be corrected by the courts, just as they have nullified them both in other situations and rationalized the jurisdiction in other respects. Cease the …

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

David R. Cleveland

While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …

The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider …