Jurisdiction Commons^™

Putting The Constitutional Horse Before The Cart: Federal Jurisdiction Over Next Generation Environmental Assessment, Anna Johnston

LLM Theses

This thesis explores the extent of federal jurisdiction over a next generation environmental assessment (EA) model proposed by Sinclair, Doelle and Gibson. Examining the jurisprudence and literature, it analyses the scope of federal constitutional authority during the triggering, information-gathering and analysis and decision-making stages of project, strategic and regional assessment. A federal next generation EA law focused on impacts on areas of federal authority could be upheld under various federal constitutional heads of power. Federal jurisdiction is most important at decision-making, and authority to trigger an assessment should be based on the low jurisdictional threshold of reasonable probability of federal …

Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick

Pepperdine Law Review

Although Article III of the Constitution vests the federal judicial power in the Article III courts, the Supreme Court has created a patchwork of exceptions permitting non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate various disputes. In doing so, the Court has focused on the separation of powers, concluding that these non-Article III adjudications do not unduly infringe on the judicial power of the Article III courts. But separation of powers is not the only consideration relevant to the lawfulness of non-Article III adjudication. Article I adjudications also implicate federalism. Permitting Article I tribunals threatens the role of state courts by expanding federal …

Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco

Robert Probasco

A citizen’s civil rights include protections against certain actions by three different governments – federal, state, and tribal. If the federal or a state government violates your civil rights, you can seek a remedy in federal court, including injunctive or declaratory judgment and damages. But the Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez that that – other than habeas corpus relief – you cannot challenge a civil rights violation by an Indian tribe in federal court. The decision has resulted in a significant amount of controversy and proposals that Congress explicitly grant such jurisdiction. This article reviews the …

Doscher: The Second Circuit Frees Itself From Its Prior Look Through Approach, Fueling A Circuit Split, Peter Nelson

Arbitration Law Review

No abstract provided.

Domicile Dismantled, Kerry Abrams, Kathryn Barber

Indiana Law Journal

Part I of this Article discusses the legal and factual background of Mas v. Perry. This narrative reveals how the case reflects both the changes in American society that were beginning to occur at that time and the struggle of the concept of domicile to keep pace with those changes. Part II traces the development of the fundamental shift in gender roles that began several years before Mas was decided. This section argues that the growing number of women attending college, embarking upon careers, and forming two-career marriages increased the difficulty of measuring domicile, while undermining the efficacy of a …

The Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction And The Latent Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Question Jurisdiction, Sam F. Halabi

Faculty Publications

This article explores the discrepancy in the law of federal jurisdiction as it has developed under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. In contrast to return claims where the remedy is discrete, finite, and closely tied to fundamental international obligations under the treaty, orders to enforce access rights are, or would be, amorphous, ongoing, and subject to other administrative structures codified in the convention as well as, in the U.S. system, adding responsibilities for federal judges more generally associated with those undertaken by state judges. Even in the one federal appellate decision that explicitly acknowledged a judicially enforceable right to ensure …

The Same-Sex Marriage Cases And Federal Jurisdiction: On Third-Party Standing And Why The Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Jurisdiction Should Be Overruled, Steven G. Calabresi, Genna L. Sinel

University of Miami Law Review

In this paper, we consider two questions. First, we address whether there was proper standing for the Article III courts to decide United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013) and Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2668 (2013). We conclude that the third-party appellants lacked standing in federal court. Second, we examine whether cases challenging state same-sex marriage bans were and are cases in “law and equity” or instead, barred under the domestic relations exception for the purposes of federal question jurisdiction. We conclude that the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction is an …

A First Look At The Proposed 'Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act Of 2015', Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

Almost half a century ago, the American Law Institute observed, “The most marked abuse has been joinder of a party of the same citizenship as plaintiff in order to defeat removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Such tactics have led to much litigation, largely futile, on the question of fraudulent joinder.” Over the last half century, the volume of litigation on this question has only increased. In response, Congress is now actively considering legislation to address the problem of fraudulent joinder.

The bill is H.R. 3624, the “Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015” (FJPA). The FJPA seeks to prevent …

Morris V. Allen And The Lost History Of The Anti-Injunction Act Of 1793, James E. Pfander, Nassim Nazemi

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Habeas Corpus In Death Penalty Cases, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers the first systematic examination of Chapter 154, United States Code, which establishes new statutory arrangements for cases in which state prisoners under sentence of death file federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their convictions or sentences. Chapter 154 was enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Yet its provisions were made applicable only in capital cases arising from states that established qualifying schemes for providing indigent death row prisoners with counsel in state postconviction proceedings. No state’s system for supplying lawyers in state court won approval and, in consequence, Chapter 154’s rules …

Enlightening The Forgotten: Removal Of State Cases Involving Service-Members Into Federal Courts, Michael C. Walsh

Michael C Walsh

No abstract provided.

Federal Banks And Federal Jurisdiction In The Progressive Era, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

This is a case study of the Supreme Court’s classic decision in Smith v. K.C. Title & Trust Co. A stockholder challenged the constitutionality of the Farm Loan Act of 1916, which authorized federal banks to issue tax-exempt bonds to raise funds for loans to farmers. The case is best known for its holding that a federal court could entertain the suit because it arose “under the Constitution” and for Justice Holmes’ argument, in dissent, that federal jurisdiction was not established because state law created the “cause of action.”

This study is the first to go beyond the jurisdictional issue …

Congressional Control Over Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Defense Of The Traditional View, Julian Velasco

Julian Velasco

The extent of Congress's authority to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts has been the subject of unending academic debate. The orthodox view long has been that Congress possesses nearly plenary authority to restrict federal court jurisdiction. There has been no shortage, however, of commentators who have taken exception to that view. The heart of the debate lies in whether Congress is authorized to remove specific subjects from the jurisdiction of federal courts when motivated by hostility to their substantive decisions. According to the traditional view, Congress is free to use its power in this manner. While most traditionalists …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

Application Of The Abstention Doctrine To Inverse Condemnation Actions In Federal Court , John T. Harris

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Muddy Decision - The High Court Fails To Define The Corps' Wetland Jurisdiction In Rapanos V. United States, Jill Lambird

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …

Remand: One Constitution, One Standard, Stephen E. Abraham, William M. Hensley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sosa Standard: What Does It Mean For Future Ats Litigation?, Virginia Monken Gomez

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

On The Efficient Deployment Of Rules And Standards To Define Federal Jurisdiction, Jonathan R. Nash

Vanderbilt Law Review

Congress and the federal courts have traditionally adopted rules, as opposed to standards, to establish the boundaries of federal district court jurisdiction. More recently, the Supreme Court has strayed from this path in two areas: federal question jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction. Commentators have generally supported the use of discretion in determining federal question jurisdiction, but they have not recognized the relationship to the rule-standard distinction, nor more importantly have they considered the importance of where discretion enters the jurisdictional calculus. This Article argues that predictability and efficiency make it normatively desirable to have rules predominate jurisdictional boundaries and thus to …

The Timeliness Of Removal And Multiple-Defendant Lawsuits, Paul Lund

Paul Lund

Although the procedure for removing cases from state to federal court has existed for nearly 225 years, removal remains one of the most controversial aspects of federal jurisdictional law. Each year, more than 30,000 civil cases are removed from state to federal court, and many of those cases involve more than one defendant. One of the most frequently litigated issues in these cases has involved when the notice of removal must be filed. Prior to a recent amendment, the statute governing removal, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), required that a notice of removal be filed within thirty days of service on …

Defining Indian Status For The Purpose Of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction, Katharine C. Oakley

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

One Nation, Under Securities Fraud: The Third Circuit Notches A Win For Federalism In In Re Lord Abbett Mutual Funds Fee Litigation, Ethan H. Townsend

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comedy Or Tragedy: The Tale Of Diversity Jurisdiction Removal And The One-Year Bar, Michael W. Lewis

Michael W. Lewis

The current laws governing diversity removal are badly broken. They create counterproductive incentives that have increased the workload of federal courts while rewarding deceptive practices on the part of plaintiffs. Defendants have every incentive to remove even low value cases to federal court, on the chance that the vague and uncertain standards governing amount in controversy issues will allow them to succeed. At the same time, the current rules encourage plaintiffs to conceal the true value of their cases for one-year, to prevent removal to federal court, and then to reveal the true value, while using the one-year bar to …

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.

Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas petitions brought by detainees held as part of the “war on terrorism” has been a popular topic for courts and commentators alike. Little attention has been paid, however, to whether the Constitution itself interposes any jurisdictional limits over such petitions. In a series of recent cases, the US government has invoked the Supreme Court’s obscure (and obtuse) 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur (338 US 197) for the proposition that Article III forecloses jurisdiction over any petition brought by a detainee in foreign or international custody, including that of the “Multinational …

Opening The Floodgates: The Roberts Court's Decision In Rapanos V. United States Spells Trouble For The Future Of The Waters Of The United States, Bill Currie

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

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 …