Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (35)
- Courts (32)
- President/Executive Department (16)
- Legislation (14)
- Supreme Court of the United States (12)
-
- Legal History (11)
- State and Local Government Law (11)
- Administrative Law (10)
- Law and Politics (10)
- Judges (7)
- Jurisprudence (7)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Law and Society (4)
- Litigation (4)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (4)
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Conflict of Laws (3)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (3)
- Human Rights Law (3)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (3)
- Rule of Law (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- International Law (2)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (2)
- Institution
-
- University of Colorado Law School (17)
- Duke Law (4)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (4)
- Pepperdine University (3)
- University of Michigan Law School (3)
-
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (2)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (2)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (2)
- BLR (1)
- Columbia Law School (1)
- Cornell University Law School (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Liberty University (1)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- Selected Works (1)
- SelectedWorks (1)
- University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- West Virginia University (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Publications (16)
- Faculty Scholarship (5)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (4)
- Articles (3)
- Pepperdine Law Review (3)
-
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (1)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- ExpressO (1)
- Faculty Working Papers (1)
- Faculty Works (1)
- Helm's School of Government Conference - American Revival: Citizenship & Virtue (1)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (1)
- Michigan Law Review (1)
- Mitchell Hamline Law Review (1)
- Northwestern University Law Review (1)
- Sarah L Brinton (1)
- Scholarly Articles (1)
- Scholarly Publications (1)
- Scholarly Works (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8) (1)
- Tom Campbell (1)
- Villanova Law Review (1)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (1)
- West Virginia Law Review (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 51
Full-Text Articles in Jurisdiction
The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring
The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring
Articles
In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …
The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell
The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell
Scholarly Articles
Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.
The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …
Health Choice Or Health Coercion? The Osha Emergency Temporary Standard Covid-19 Vaccination Mandates: Ax Or Vax, Savannah Snyder
Health Choice Or Health Coercion? The Osha Emergency Temporary Standard Covid-19 Vaccination Mandates: Ax Or Vax, Savannah Snyder
Helm's School of Government Conference - American Revival: Citizenship & Virtue
No abstract provided.
Federalism Limits On Non-Article Iii Adjudication, F. Andrew Hessick
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 …
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein
Pepperdine Law Review
On July 9, 2020, in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the separation of powers concerns attendant to congressional subpoenas for presidential information. Given that the question presented in Mazars concerned whether Congress had a legitimate legislative purpose in subpoenaing the President’s personal records, the Supreme Court’s decision is anything but a model of clarity. The Court simultaneously opined that disputes “involving nonprivileged, private information” “do[ ] not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations” while claiming “congressional subpoenas for the President’s information unavoidably pit …
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
Neither Fish Nor Fowl: The Separation Of Powers And The Office Of Administrative Hearings, Ann E. Cohen, Elise Larson
Neither Fish Nor Fowl: The Separation Of Powers And The Office Of Administrative Hearings, Ann E. Cohen, Elise Larson
Mitchell Hamline Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Federal Equity Power, Michael T. Morley
The Federal Equity Power, Michael T. Morley
Scholarly Publications
Throughout the first century and a half of our nation’s history, federal courts treated equity as a type of general law. They applied a uniform, freestanding body of principles derived from the English Court of Chancery to all equitable issues that came before them, regardless of whether a case arose under federal or state law. In 1945, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the United States Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the changes wrought by the Erie Doctrine, federal courts may continue to rely on these traditional principles of equity to determine the availability of equitable relief, such as injunctions, …
Erie As A Way Of Life, Ernest A. Young
State Public-Law Litigation In An Age Of Polarization, Margaret H. Lemos, Ernest A. Young
State Public-Law Litigation In An Age Of Polarization, Margaret H. Lemos, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
Public-law litigation by state governments plays an increasingly prominent role in American governance. Although public lawsuits by state governments designed to challenge the validity or shape the content of national policy are not new, such suits have increased in number and salience over the last few decades — especially since the tobacco litigation of the late 1990s. Under the Obama and Trump Administrations, such suits have taken on a particularly partisan cast; “red” states have challenged the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s immigration orders, for example, and “blue” states have challenged President Trump’s travel bans and attempts to roll …
Introduction To Constraining The Executive, Tom Campbell
Introduction To Constraining The Executive, Tom Campbell
Tom Campbell
Federalism All The Way Up: State Standing And "The New Process Federalism", Jessica Bulman-Pozen
Federalism All The Way Up: State Standing And "The New Process Federalism", Jessica Bulman-Pozen
Faculty Scholarship
This commentary considers what federalism all the way up means for Gerken’s proposed new process federalism. The state-federal integration she documents underscores why judicial policing of “conditions for federal-state bargaining” cannot be limited to state-federal relations in the traditional sense. It must extend to state challenges to the allocation and exercise of authority within the federal government. The new process federalism would therefore do well to address when states will have standing to bring such cases in federal court. After Part I describes contemporary federalism-all-the-way-up litigation, Part II suggests that Gerken’s “Federalism 3.0” complicates both traditional parens patriae and sovereignty …
War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford
War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford
Northwestern University Law Review
In this essay, Ford considers provisions of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which place restrictions on the disposition of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay. These provisions raise substantial separation of powers issues regarding the ability of Congress to restrict detention operations of the Executive. These restrictions, and similar restrictions found in earlier NDAAs, specifically implicate the Executive's powers in foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Ford concludes that, with the exception of a similar provision found in the 2013 NDAA, the restrictions are constitutional.
How Presidents Interpret The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff
How Presidents Interpret The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff
Publications
No abstract provided.
Modern-Day Nullification: Marijuana And The Persistence Of Federalism In An Age Of Overlapping Regulatory Jurisdiction, Ernest A. Young
Modern-Day Nullification: Marijuana And The Persistence Of Federalism In An Age Of Overlapping Regulatory Jurisdiction, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Three-Dimensional Sovereign Immunity, Sarah L. Brinton
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.
A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young
A General Defense Of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was the most important federalism decision of the Twentieth Century. Justice Brandeis’s opinion for the Court stated unequivocally that “[e]xcept in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. . . . There is no federal general common law.” Seventy-five years later, however, Erie finds itself under siege. Critics have claimed that it is “bereft of serious intellectual or constitutional support” (Michael Greve), based on a “myth” that must be “repressed” (Craig Green), and even “the worst decision …
What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb
What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and prohibits the national government, the states or both from doing some things. The Court has inferred principles of federalism from those provisions. The political science community has treated the advantages of federalism as contingent on whether federalism deepens or diffuses conflict or opens competition for power. The United States Supreme Court's approach does neither; it has been trying to clarify and police a very different boundary. Even on its own terms, however, the Court's justifications do not work - a problem made …
Legal Process In A Box, Or What Class Action Waivers Teach Us About Law-Making, Rhonda Wasserman
Legal Process In A Box, Or What Class Action Waivers Teach Us About Law-Making, Rhonda Wasserman
Articles
The Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion advanced an agenda found in neither the text nor the legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act. Concepcion provoked a maelstrom of reactions not only from the press and the academy, but also from Congress, federal agencies and lower courts, as they struggled to interpret, apply, reverse, or cabin the Court’s blockbuster decision. These reactions raise a host of provocative questions about the relationships among the branches of government and between the Supreme Court and the lower courts. Among other questions, Concepcion and its aftermath force us to grapple with the …
In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks
In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks
Publications
John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …
Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan
Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In this essay, I take up the Court’s less heralded second holding in Boumediene v. Bush - that a federal habeas court must have the institutional capacity to find facts, which in Boumediene itself meant that a federal district court must be available to the petitioners. Although this has gone largely unnoticed, I contend that this holding is inconsistent with the Madisonian Compromise - the standard view that the Constitution does not require jurisdiction in any federal court, except the Supreme Court. In fact, it appears that the Court adopted Justice Story’s position that the Constitution requires vesting of jurisdiction …
Article Iii And The Scottish Enlightenment, James E. Pfander
Article Iii And The Scottish Enlightenment, James E. Pfander
Faculty Working Papers
Historically-minded scholars and jurists invariably turn to English law and precedents in attempting to recapture the legal world of the framers. Blackstone's famous Commentaries on the Laws of England offers a convenient reference for moderns looking backwards. Yet the generation that framed the Constitution often relied on other sources, including Scottish law and legal institutions. Indeed, the Scottish judicial system provided an important, but overlooked, model for the framing of Article III. Unlike the English system of overlapping jurisdiction, the Scottish judiciary featured a hierarchical, appellate-style judiciary, with one supreme court sitting at the top and an array of inferior …
The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun
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.
Law Casebook Description And Table Of Contents: Constitutional Environmental And Natural Resources Law [Outline], Jim May, Robin Craig
Law Casebook Description And Table Of Contents: Constitutional Environmental And Natural Resources Law [Outline], Jim May, Robin Craig
The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)
6 pages.
"James May, Widener University School of Law" -- Agenda
Complete Preemption And The Separation Of Powers, Trevor W. Morrison
Complete Preemption And The Separation Of Powers, Trevor W. Morrison
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This is a short response, published in Pennumbra (the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review), to Gil Seinfeld's recent article, "The Puzzle of Complete Preemption."
I first sound some notes of agreement with Professor Seinfeld's critique of the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine. I then turn to his proposed reshaping of the doctrine around the interest in federal legal uniformity. Although certainly more satisfying than the Court's account, Professor Seinfeld's refashioning of the doctrine raises a number of new difficulties. In particular, it invites the federal courts to engage in a range of line-drawing exercises to which …
When Worlds Collide: Federal Construction Of State Institutional Competence, Marcia L. Mccormick
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 …
Jurisdiction Stripping In Three Acts: A Three String Serenade, Caprice L. Roberts
Jurisdiction Stripping In Three Acts: A Three String Serenade, Caprice L. Roberts
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy For Claims Brought Under The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Steven Plitt, Joshua D. Rogers
Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy For Claims Brought Under The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Steven Plitt, Joshua D. Rogers
Seattle University Law Review
This Article focuses upon abstention in the context of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act ("FDJA"). Part I will discuss the various forms of abstention and the historical progression and development of the abstention doctrine in federal case law, setting the background for the expansive holding in Huth v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest. Part II of the article will discuss the procedural history of Huth and the respective rulings of the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to their application of the abstention doctrine. Part III will then analyze the numerous, and potentially …
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.
One such …
Towards A Constitutional Architecture For Cooperative Federalism, Philip J. Weiser
Towards A Constitutional Architecture For Cooperative Federalism, Philip J. Weiser
Publications
In this Article, Professor Weiser calls for a new conception of federal-state relations to justify existing political practice under cooperative federalism regulatory programs. In particular, Professor Weiser highlights how Congress favors cooperative federalism programs--that combine federal and state authority in creative ways--and has rejected the dual federalism model of regulation--with separate spheres of state and federal authority that current judicial rhetoric often celebrates. Given the increasing dissonance between prevailing political practice and judicial rhetoric, courts will ultimately have to confront three fault lines for current cooperative federalism programs: the legal source of authority for state agencies to implement federal law, …