Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The Supreme Court, Article Iii, And Jurisdiction Stuffing, James E. Pfander

Pepperdine Law Review

Reflecting on the state of the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Biden Commission report and subsequent controversies, this Article identifies problems with the current operation of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts that make up the Article III judicial pyramid. Many federal issues have been assigned to non-Article III tribunals, courts poorly structured to offer the independent legal assessment that such Founders as James Wilson prized as they structured the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court devotes growing attention to a slice of highly salient public law questions, including those presented on the shadow docket, thereby …

Voluntary Dismissals, Jurisdiction & Waiving Appellate Review, Bryan Lammon

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Litigants have long tried to manufacture a final, appealable decision by voluntarily dismissing their claims after an adverse interlocutory decision. Recently—and especially since the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker—courts have thought that these dismissals created a jurisdictional problem. Either the voluntary dismissal did not produce a final decision, or the dismissal extinguished Article III jurisdiction. But the problem with these appeals is not jurisdictional. It’s waiver. A voluntary dismissal after an adverse interlocutory decision waives the right to appellate review. This Article shows the flaws in the jurisdictional rejection of this kind of manufactured finality and …

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, …

Original Intent: Understanding The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction In Controversies Between States, Kristen A. Linsley

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement As Political Question, Zachary S. Price

Notre Dame Law Review

Across a range of contexts, federal courts have crafted doctrines that limit judicial secondguessing of executive nonenforcement decisions. Key case law, however, carries important ambiguities of scope and rationale. In particular, key decisions have combined rationales rooted in executive prerogative with concerns about nonenforcement’s “unsuitability” for judicial resolution. With one nonenforcement initiative now before the Supreme Court and other related issues percolating in lower courts, this Article makes the case for the latter rationale. Judicial review of nonenforcement, on this account, involves a form of political question, in the sense of the “political question doctrine”: while executive officials hold a …

Suspecting The States: Supreme Court Review Of State-Court State-Law Judgments, Laura S. Fitzgerald

Michigan Law Review

At the Supreme Court these days, it is unfashionable to second-guess states' fealty to federal law without real proof that they are ignoring it. As the Court declared in Alden v. Maine: "We are unwilling to assume the States will refuse to honor the Constitution or obey the binding laws of the United States. The good faith of the States thus provides an important assurance that 'this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" Accordingly, without proof that a state has "systematic[ally]" …

"Federal Question" Jurisdiction -- A Snare And A Delusion, Ernest J. London

Michigan Law Review

Poorly defined criteria in the area of jurisdiction are especially wasteful, generating as they often do expensive and protracted litigation over threshold issues, rather than promoting the speedy determination of lawsuits on their merits. One of the most perplexing exercises in American law practice is the effort to define with certainty the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts in matters where there is no diversity of citizenship. Although this general head of federal jurisdiction has persistently and pervasively been characterized as "federal question" jurisdiction, it is doubtful whether there is, in fact, original jurisdiction in the lower federal courts …

Constitutional Law - Courts-Martial - Power Of Congress To Provide For Military Jurisdiction Over Civilians, Whitmore Gray S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

During the past term the Supreme Court decided three cases involving the constitutionality of court-martial jurisdiction over certain groups of civilians. In United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles the Court held that Congress could not constitutionally provide for military trial of a discharged serviceman for offenses committed during his term of service. In two subsequent cases the Court rejected the contention that the Toth decision announced a principle applicable to any exercise of jurisdiction over civilians by the military courts in upholding the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military jurisdiction over civilian dependents accompanying American …