Jurisprudence Commons^™

Following The Science: Judicial Review Of Climate Science, Maxine Sugarman

Washington Law Review

Climate change is the greatest existential crisis of our time. Yet, to date, Congress has failed to enact the broad-sweeping policies required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the rate scientists have deemed necessary to avoid devastating consequences for our planet and all those who inhabit it. In the absence of comprehensive legislative action to solve the climate crisis, the executive branch has become more creative in the use of its authorities under bedrock environmental statutes to develop new climate regulations. Environmental advocates, states, and industry groups that oppose such regulations or assert that agencies could accomplish more under existing …

Fugitive Pull: Applying The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine To Foreign Defendants, Zachary Z. Schroeder

Washington Law Review

Defendants force courts to decide whether to use judicial time and resources to hear a case when they either flee or refuse to submit to jurisdiction. Judges in the United States possess an exceptional discretionary power to deny access to the courts in these circumstances through the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine developed as federal common law and permits courts to exercise discretion in declining to hear appeals or motions from defendants classified as fugitives from justice.

Historically, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was intended to prevent courts from wasting resources adjudicating cases when a defendant has fled and …

Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry

Washington Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …

Obstacles To Proving 24-Hour Lighting Is Cruel And Unusual Under Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Lauren Jaech

Washington Law Review

Twenty-four-hour lighting causes sleep deprivation, depression, and other serious disorders for incarcerated individuals, yet courts often do not consider it to be cruel and unusual. To decide if prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, courts follow a two-part inquiry that requires examining the intent of prison officials (known as the subjective prong) as well as the degree of seriousness of the alleged cruel or unusual condition (the objective prong). Incarcerated individuals often file complaints challenging 24-hour lighting conditions. Whether they succeed on these claims may depend on the circuit in which they reside. Judges …

Examining Comity And The Exhaustion Doctrine In Tribal Court Civil Jurisdiction: The Cherokee Nation’S Opioid Litigation, Joëlle Klein

Washington Law Review

The opioid epidemic has devastated communities throughout the United States over the last two decades. Native American and Alaska Native tribes faced disproportionate impacts and suffered the long-lasting consequences that opioid addiction causes families and communities. In response, states and municipalities across the United States sued the distributors and pharmacies responsible for illegally diverting opioids. In April of 2017, the Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation, Todd Hembree, initiated a civil suit against opioid pharmaceutical distributors and retailers: CVS, Walgreens, Wal-Mart (pharmacies), and McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen (distributors). Although other tribes in the United States also brought claims against …

Why Our Stories Matter: A Perspective On The Restatement From The State Bench, Raquel Montoya-Lewis

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tribal Sovereignty And Economic Efficiency Versus The Courts, Robert J. Miller

Washington Law Review

American Indian reservations are the poorest parts of the United States, and a higher percentage of Indian families across the country live below the poverty line than any other ethnic or racial sector. Indian nations and Indian peoples also suffer from the highest unemployment rates in the country and have the highest substandard housing rates. The vast majority of the over three hundred Indian reservations and the Alaska Native villages do not have functioning economies. This lack of economic activity starves tribal governments of the tax revenues that governments need to function. In response, Indian nations create and operate business …

Is It Time To Bury Barry? Why An Old Change At The Legislature Requires A New Look At Washington's Nondelegation Doctrine, Daniel A. Himebaugh

Washington Law Review Online

Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court of Washington adopted a relaxed version of the nondelegation doctrine in a case called Barry and Barry v. Department of Motor Vehicles. The Barry rule, which only loosely restricts the delegation of policy-making power from the Legislature to other bodies, is now widely applied in Washington State. However, the Barry Court’s reasons for adjusting the nondelegation doctrine were based on an outdated understanding of the Legislature, especially its regular session schedule. While the Legislature’s regular sessions have changed since 1972—becoming longer and more frequent due to constitutional amendment—the Court has not considered how …

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley

Washington Law Review

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

Race And Washington’S Criminal Justice System: 2021 Report To The Washington Supreme Court, Task Force 2.0

Washington Law Review

RACE & WASHINGTON’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

EDITOR’S NOTE

As Editors-in-Chief of the Washington Law Review, Gonzaga Law Review, and Seattle University Law Review, we represent the flagship legal academic publications of each law school in Washington State. Our publications last joined together to publish the findings of the first Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System in 2011/12. A decade later, we are honored to join once again to present the findings of Task Force 2.0. Law journals have enabled generations of legal professionals to introduce, vet, and distribute new ideas, critiques of existing legal structures, and reflections …

Qualified Sovereignty, Kate Sablosky Elengold, Jonathan D. Glater

Washington Law Review

Sometimes acts of the federal government cause harm; sometimes acts of contractors hired by the federal government cause harm. In cases involving the latter, federal contractors often invoke the sovereign’s constitutionally granted and doctrinally expanded supremacy to restrict avenues for the injured to recover even from private actors. In prior work, we analyzed how federal contractors exploit three “sovereign shield” defenses—preemption, derivative sovereign immunity, and derivative intergovernmental immunity—to evade liability, accountability, and oversight.

This Article considers whether, when, and how private federal contractors should be held accountable in a court of law. We argue that a contractor should be required …

“Unconstitutional Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” – A Misleading Mantra That Should Be Gone For Good, Hugh Spitzer

Washington Law Review Online

For a century, Washington State Supreme Court opinions periodically have intoned that the body will not invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds unless it is “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” This odd declaration invokes an evidentiary standard of proof as a rule of decision for a legal question of constitutionality, and it confuses practitioners and the public alike. “Unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt” is not peculiar to Washington State. Indeed, it began appearing in state court decisions in the early nineteenth century and, rarely, in opinions of the United States Supreme Court. But the use of the phrase rapidly increased …

Piecing Together Precedent: Fragmented Decisions From The Washington State Supreme Court, Rachael Clark

Washington Law Review

For decades, countless jurisdictions have grappled with the ambiguous precedential weight of court decisions that lack a majority opinion. In American jurisprudence, applying a “majority,” “lead,” “concurrence,” or “dissent” label to an appellate court opinion indicates agreement or disagreement with the judgment of the case. When a decision is fragmented (that is, there is no majority opinion), courts often express the judgment of the court with one opinion labeled as the “plurality” or “lead” opinion. Traditionally, labeling an opinion as a “lead opinion” indicates that the reasoning expressed within the opinion has more support than the other opinions written for …

Finality, Appealability, And The Scope Of Interlocutory Review, Bryan Lammon

Washington Law Review

Most of the law of federal appellate jurisdiction comes from judicial interpretations of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That statute gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over only “final decisions” of the district courts. The federal courts have used this grant of jurisdiction to create most of the rules governing appellate jurisdiction. But those efforts have required giving many different meanings to the term “final decision.” And those many different meanings are to blame for much of the confusion, complexity, unpredictability, and inflexibility that plague this area of law. The literature has accordingly advocated reform that would base most of the …

A Modified Theory Of The Law Of Federal Courts: The Case Of Arising-Under Jurisdiction, Simona Grossi

Washington Law Review

This Article examines and evaluates the legal process method as a perspective from which to assess the law of federal courts. It then offers a modified approach to legal process that encompasses the full range of considerations that ought to inform modern judicial decision-making in this context. With that modified approach in mind, the article describes and critiques the Supreme Court’s statutory arising-under jurisprudence, both as originally developed and as currently practiced. The article shows that while the Court’s early “arising-under” jurisprudence was founded on durable principles and on the reasoned application of those principles, more recent decisions by the …

Rights, Rights Of Action, And Remedies: An Integrated Approach, Donald H. Zeigler

Washington Law Review

Traditionally, courts equated rights and remedies. Consequently, courts sought to provide remedies for the violation of statutory rights even if a statute did not contain detailed enforcement provisions. In the 1970s, however, the U.S. Supreme Court transformed what had been a unified inquiry into whether a statutory provision should bejudicially enforceable into three distinct questions and developed separate criteria for deciding whether a statute should be read to create a right, imply a right of action, or provide a remedy. Rights, rights of action, and remedies are inextricably related. The Court's attempt to separate these inseparable concepts has led to …

Judicial Notice: An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding, E.F. Robert

Washington Law Review

Articles limning the law pertaining to judicial notice are legion, and the footnotes which have been cite checked by generations of law review editors must number in the thousands. These articles assume that reason, properly employed, produces correct answers. They assume that disagreements can be resolved by reason, because it is self-evident that any problem, once identified, can be solved. Reflected here are the presuppositions of lawyers brought up in the Western legal tradition. What if one were to doubt that reason necessarily governed the behavior of lawyers? What if one doubted as well that all problems were susceptible to …

"Property Rights" In Constitutional Analysis Today, James L. Oakes

Washington Law Review

The concept of "property rights" in Supreme Court constitutional analysis today is in flux. It has been and is undergoing change—a change more rapid than those of us who have concentrated our attention on other personal rights can imagine. That this process of change raises anew some fundamental issues of justice is not surprising; the institution of property has always done so. Perhaps the change is simply a swing of the pendulum, as the quote from Justice Frankfurter suggests: individual "property rights" assume greater importance as a state moves toward a laissez-faire economy or away from a regulated one; they …

"Property Rights" In Constitutional Analysis Today, James L. Oakes

Washington Law Review

The concept of "property rights" in Supreme Court constitutional analysis today is in flux. It has been and is undergoing change—a change more rapid than those of us who have concentrated our attention on other personal rights can imagine. That this process of change raises anew some fundamental issues of justice is not surprising; the institution of property has always done so. Perhaps the change is simply a swing of the pendulum, as the quote from Justice Frankfurter suggests: individual "property rights" assume greater importance as a state moves toward a laissez-faire economy or away from a regulated one; they …

Legal Method—Deciding The Retroactive Effect Of Overruling Decisions—Lau V. Nelson, 92 Wn. 2d 823, 601 P.2d 527 (1979), Robert B. Fisko

Washington Law Review

On December 21, 1978, the Washington Supreme Court decided in Robberts v. Johnson to overrule the common law gross negligence rule applied in Lau and earlier cases, and to adopt the ordinary negligence rule, followed by a majority of states. Remanding to trial on an ordinary negligence standard, the court gave plaintiff Robberts the retroactive benefit of the new rule, but remained silent on any further retroactive effect of the decision. The principal issue in Lau's second appeal, argued after the filing of the Robberts decision, was whether and to what extent the Robberts overruling decision should be given further …

Jurisprudence And The Nature Of Language: Contrasting Views Of Hart And Chomsky, Anon

Washington Law Review

Because much of modern philosophy has been preoccupied with some form of language analysis and because jurists often apply philosophical techniques and insights when attempting to solve jurisprudential problems, theories or views of the nature of language have considerable jurisprudential significance. The point is illustrated by the recent movement toward using the methods of "ordinary language" philosophy in the analysis of legal problems. The pattern is not new; a roughly similar relationship is seen in positivism and its application in jurisprudence. The notion behind this approach is that an understanding of the nature of language contributes to the solution of …

Jurisprudence And The Nature Of Language: Contrasting Views Of Hart And Chomsky, Anon

Washington Law Review

Because much of modern philosophy has been preoccupied with some form of language analysis and because jurists often apply philosophical techniques and insights when attempting to solve jurisprudential problems, theories or views of the nature of language have considerable jurisprudential significance. The point is illustrated by the recent movement toward using the methods of "ordinary language" philosophy in the analysis of legal problems. The pattern is not new; a roughly similar relationship is seen in positivism and its application in jurisprudence. The notion behind this approach is that an understanding of the nature of language contributes to the solution of …

The Assignment Of Errors In Appellate Briefs, Harry R. Venables, John Veblen

Washington Law Review

Few subjects have troubled courts more and legal writers less than faulty assignments of error. Since the subject has received little attention outside the reports themselves, there has developed a mass of hitherto unassimilated case authority which, because of its size, is an obstacle rather than an aid to courts and attorneys. This article is the product of a survey of those cases. It will add little to the general store of information on the subject, but it is designed to do two things: (1) call the attention of the Bar to some of the clearer and better written discussions …