Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The End Of An Era? Federal Civil Procedure After The 2015 Amendments, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were the most controversial in decades. The biggest criticisms concerned pleading standards and access to discovery. Many feared that the amendments would undermine the simplified, merits-driven approach that the original drafters of the Federal Rules envisioned and would weaken access to justice and the enforcement of substantive rights and obligations.

This Article argues that the amendments that came into effect on December 1, 2015, do not mandate a more restrictive approach to pleading or discovery. Although there was legitimate cause for alarm given the advisory committee’s earlier proposals and supporting …

Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court's revision of general pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has not left courts and litigants with a clear or precise understanding of what it takes to state a claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. Claimants are required to show "plausible entitlement to relief" by offering enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Translating those admonitions into predictable and consistent guidelines has proven illusory. This Article proposes a descriptive theory that explains the fundaments of contemporary pleading doctrine in …

What Is The Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean For The Contemporary Politics Of Judicial Federalism?), Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

As when Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided seventy years ago, federal courts today are seen as more favorable to corporate and business interests than many of their state-court brethren. The current situation is due in no small part to federal courts' comparatively pro-defendant approaches to summary judgment, class certification, and other procedural issues. The Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which tilts federal pleading standards in favor of defendants, will likely have similar federalism implications. This Article presents a straightforward argument that the Erie doctrine may require federal courts to follow state-law standards on summary judgment, …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instructions on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing summary judgment. However, Celotex failed to clarify …

Judicial Lobbying At The Wto: The Debate Over The Use Of Amicus Curiae Briefs And The U.S. Experience, Padideh Ala'i

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The continuing debate over the use of amicus curiae briefs at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) raises interesting questions about the influence of the U.S. legal system on the WTO dispute settlement process. Specifically, it brings to the surface differences between legal cultures and the fact that the U.S. legal culture with its emphasis on procedure is not readily transferable to the WTO. Comparing the controversy regarding the use of amicus curiae briefs before WTO Panels and the Appellate Body with the history and evolution of the institution of amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court may help explain the …