Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
Congressional Power To Strip State Courts Of Jurisdiction, Michael C. Dorf
Congressional Power To Strip State Courts Of Jurisdiction, Michael C. Dorf
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The very substantial literature on the scope of congressional power to strip courts of jurisdiction contains a gap: it does not discuss the source of the affirmative power of Congress to strip state courts of their jurisdiction. Laws granting exclusive federal court jurisdiction over some category of cases are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts, but what power does Congress exercise when it strips both state and federal courts of jurisdiction? The answer depends on the nature of the case. In stripping all courts of the power to hear federal …
The Limits Of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(G): When Do Courts Have Jurisdiction To Entertain An Alien’S Claim For Damages Against The Government?, Kimberly P. Will
The Limits Of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(G): When Do Courts Have Jurisdiction To Entertain An Alien’S Claim For Damages Against The Government?, Kimberly P. Will
Cornell International Law Journal
The objective of this Note is to identify the scope of § 1252(g). It concurs with previous scholarship, which has stated that, based on legislative intent and controlling precedents, § 1252(g) only applies to instances where the government exercises discretionary authority. That is, when the government violates statutes or its own regulations, courts may entertain the alien’s claim for damages. However, as many courts reject this argument, this Note further suggests that § 1252(g) should be interpreted narrowly so as to allow meritorious plaintiffs the possibility of recovering for the harm they suffered. This Note will also explore the international …
Procedural Retrenchment And The States, Zachary D. Clopton
Procedural Retrenchment And The States, Zachary D. Clopton
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Although not always headline grabbing, the Roberts Court has been highly interested in civil procedure. According to critics, the Court has undercut access to justice and private enforcement through its decisions on pleading, class actions, summary judgment, arbitration, standing, personal jurisdiction, and international law.
While I have much sympathy for the Court's critics, the current discourse too often ignores the states. Rather than bemoaning the Roberts Court's decisions to limit court access-and despairing further developments in the age of Trump-we instead might productively focus on the options open to state courts and public enforcement. Many of the aforementioned decisions are …
Degrees Of Deference: Applying Vs. Adopting Another Sovereign's Law, Kevin M. Clermont
Degrees Of Deference: Applying Vs. Adopting Another Sovereign's Law, Kevin M. Clermont
Cornell Law Review
Familiar to all Federal Courts enthusiasts is the Erie distinction between federal actors’ obligatory application of state law and their voluntary adoption of state law as federal law. This Article’s thesis is that this significant distinction holds in all other situations where a sovereign employs another’s law: not only in the analogous reverse-Erie resolution of federal law’s constraint on state actors, but also in the horizontal choice-of-law setting and even in connection with the status of international law. Application and adoption are different avenues by which to approach a pluralist world. Application involves the recognition of the other sovereign’s law …