Jurisdiction Commons^™

The Right Thing For Juveniles, Tamar R. Birckhead

Tamar R Birckhead

This op-ed argues that the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in North Carolina should be raised from 16 to 18.

A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Lumen N. Mulligan

Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court’s section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of “right” (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …

A Unified Theory Of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

Title 28, section 1331 of the United States Code provides the jurisdictional grounding for the majority of cases heard in the federal courts, yet it is not well understood. The predominant view holds that section 1331 doctrine both lacks a focus upon congressional intent and is internally inconsistent. I seek to counter both these assumptions by re-contextualizing the Court's section 1331 jurisprudence in terms of the contemporary judicial usage of right (i.e., clear, mandatory obligations capable of judicial enforcement) and cause of action (i.e., permission to vindicate a right in court). In conducting this reinterpretation, I argue that section 1331 …

On Jurisdictional Elephants And Kangaroo Courts, Stephen I. Vladeck

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Judicial Foreign Policy: Lessons From The 1790s, David Sloss

Faculty Publications

This Article demonstrates that the exclusive political control thesis is incompatible with the original understanding of the Founders. The Article does not defend originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation; it merely shows that the exclusive political control thesis is inconsistent with an originalist approach.

The Article examines the implementation of U.S. neutrality policy in the period from 1793 to 1797. Other scholars have analyzed the initial formulation of U.S. neutrality policy in 1793. Scholars who focus narrowly on the year 1793, when the United States first articulated its neutrality policy, have concluded that "the federal courts played a relatively …

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Beyond Guantánamo, Obstacles And Options (Part Ii), Gregory S. Mcneal

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Beyond Guantánamo, Obstacles And Options, Gregory S. Mcneal

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

A Personal Jurisdiction Dilemma: Collateral Attacks On Foreign Judgments In U.S. Recognition Proceedings, J. Chad Mitchell

Brigham Young University International Law & Management Review

No abstract provided.

"Manifest" Destiny?: How Some Courts Have Fallaciously Come To Require A Greater Showing Of Congressional Intent For Jurisdictional Exhaustion Than They Require For Preemption, Colin Miller

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Quest For Creative Jurisdiction: The Evolution Of Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine Of Israeli Courts Toward The Palestinian Territories, Michael M. Karayanni

Michigan Journal of International Law

The thesis offered in this Article, marking three different stages in the development of the personal jurisdiction doctrine of Israeli courts toward the PT of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, has two additional attributes. One concerns the doctrinal innovation in the general personal jurisdiction doctrine of Israeli courts that also took place as these different stages unfolded. The evolving status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over the years, together with the need of courts to reach conclusive results in the cases brought before them, made it necessary for courts to be creative in adjusting the …

Prosecuting Aggression, Noah Weisbord

Faculty Publications

The Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court will soon have its first opportunity to revise the Rome Statute and activate the latent crime of aggression, which awaits a definition of its elements and conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction. The working group charged with drafting a provision is scheduled to complete its task by 2008 or 2009, one year before the International Criminal Court’s first review conference.

Beginning with a history of the crime meant to put the current negotiations in the context of past initiatives, this article sets out the status of the negotiations and begins …

Debt And Democracy: Towards A Constitutional Theory Of Bankruptcy, Jonathan C. Lipson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the relationship between bankruptcy and constitutional law. Article I, § 8, cl. 4 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to make “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.” While there are many good social, political and economic theories of bankruptcy, there has been surprisingly little effort to explore what it means to have constitutionalized financial distress. This article is a first step in that direction. Constitutional problems with bankruptcy are not new, but present three under-appreciated puzzles: First, why have we put a bankruptcy power in the Constitution, and what does its “peculiar” …

Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Early History Of The Colorado Court Of Appeals, Robert M. Linz, Claire E. Munger

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun

Publications

The judiciary should impose a heavy burden of justification on the executive when a habeas petitioner challenges the accuracy of facts on which an enemy combatant designation rests. A heavy burden of justification will ensure that the essential institutional purposes of the writ--and legitimate, separated-powers government--are preserved, even during times of national exigency. The institutional purposes of the writ argue for robust judicial review rather than deference to the executive. Moreover, the procedural flexibility traditionally associated with the writ gives the judiciary the tools to ensure that a heavy burden of justification can be imposed.

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Michigan Law Review

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal …

Taking Liberties: The Personal Jurisdiction Of Military Commissions, Madeline Morris

Faculty Scholarship

On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda operatives attacked civilian and military targets on US territory, causing thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of economic loss. The next day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1368 characterizing the attack by Al Qaeda as a "threat to international peace and security" and recognizing the right of states to use armed force in self defense.

'The Law Of The Circuit' Revisited: What Role For Majority Rule?, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

In April 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that the full 15-judge court would convene to hear the challenge to President Trump’s executive order “to protect the Nation from terrorist activities by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” This was a significant departure from the usual practice in the federal courts of appeals. Initial en banc hearing is extremely unusual, and rehearing en banc after a panel decision is almost as rare.

Ordinarily, two features define the ordinary course of adjudication in the federal courts of appeals. First, cases are heard and decided by panels of three …

Slavery, Federalism, And The Constitution: Ableman V. Booth And The Struggle Over Fugitive Slaves , Earl M. Maltz

Cleveland State Law Review

The Article will discuss and analyze the forces that shaped Ableman v. Booth, one of the most dramatic confrontations in the long-running dispute over fugitive slaves, the Supreme Court's disposition of the case, and the aftermath of the decision. The Article will begin by describing the state of the dispute over fugitive slaves in the mid-1850s. The Article will then recount the events that brought Ableman to the Supreme Court and analyze the Court's opinion. Finally, the Article will discuss the aftermath and significance of the dispute.

Has The Erie Doctrine Been Repealed By Congress?, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Nontestimonial Declarations Against Penal Interest: Eschewing The Corroboration Requirement For Inculpatory Statements, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2008), Michael Duffy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Greater And Lesser Powers Of Tort Reform: The Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine And State-Law Claims Concerning Fda-Approved Products, Catherine T. Struve

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Much Ado About Pluralities: Pride And Precedent Amidst The Cacophy Of Concurrences, And Re-Percolation After Rapanos, Donald J. Kochan, Melissa M. Berry, Matthew J. Parlow

Donald J. Kochan

Conflicts created by concurrences and pluralities in court decisions create confusion in law and lower court interpretation. Rule of law values require that individuals be able to identify controlling legal principles. That task is complicated when pluralities and concurrences contribute to the vagueness or uncertainty that leaves us wondering what the controlling rule is or attempting to predict what it will evolve to become. The rule of law is at least handicapped when continuity or confidence or confusion infuse our understanding of the applicable rules. This Article uses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States to …