Conflict of Laws Commons^™

Introduction: Marijuana Laws And Federalism, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure And The Conflict Of Laws, John Bernard Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

State Searches, Federal Cases, And Choice Of Law: Just A Little Respect, John B. Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure And The Conflict Of Laws, John Bernard Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

"Local Data" In European Choice Of Law: A Trojan Horse From Across The Atlantic?, T.W. Dornis

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Marijuana Laws And Federalism, Erwin Chemerinsky

Boston College Law Review

No abstract provided.

A General Theory Of Preemption: With Comments On State Decriminalization Of Marijuana, Lea Brilmayer

Boston College Law Review

Marijuana decriminalization is a hotly debated topic, which has nonetheless seen popular support in recent years. Current federal law (the Controlled Substances Act) conflicts with many state decriminalization efforts, raising the obvious question of federal preemption. The Supreme Court has failed to provide a clear answer on how much federal law preempts state marijuana decriminalization laws. This Article identifies the foundational principles of vertical and horizontal preemption, as well as various unanswered questions regarding these doctrines. It then applies these questions to marijuana decriminalization. Ultimately, it argues that there is a weak case for vertical or horizontal preemption in the ...

One Toke Too Far: The Demise Of The Dormant Commerce Clause's Extraterritoriality Doctrine Threatens The Marijuana-Legalization Experiment, Chad Deveaux

Boston College Law Review

This Article argues that the pending feuds between neighboring states over marijuana decriminalization demonstrate the need for a strict doctrine limiting a state’s regulatory authority to its own borders. Precedent recognizes that the dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) “precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.” This prohibition protects “the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres” by dictating that “[n]o state has the authority to tell other polities what laws they must enact or how affairs ...

Policy, Preemption, And Pot: Extra-Territorial Citizen Jurisdiction, Gabriel J. Chin

Boston College Law Review

In contemporary America, legislators send messages about values through symbolic legislation and lawsuits. One conflict is between states where marijuana is legal and others that continue to ban it. This Article evaluates what might happen if anti-marijuana states made it illegal for their citizens to purchase or use marijuana, borrowing a page from the playbook of activists opposed to reproductive choice who propose that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, individuals could be prohibited from traveling to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Although such laws would be hard to enforce, they still present important questions of ...

Budding Conflicts: Marijuana's Impact On Unsettled Questions Of Tribal-State Relations, Katherine J. Florey

Boston College Law Review

In the wake of a December 2014 decision by the Department of Justice to deprioritize enforcement of federal marijuana laws against tribes as well as states, many tribes have reevaluated their policies toward marijuana. Tribal attitudes toward marijuana are diverse; some tribes regard marijuana as a public health menace, whereas others see it as a source of economic opportunity. Where tribal policies are significantly more or less restrictive than those of the surrounding state, tribal-state relations have often suffered friction. The problem is particularly acute given the jurisdictional uncertainty that characterizes Indian country and the absence of any equivalent to ...

Reefer Madness: How Non-Legalizing States Can Revamp Dram Shop Laws To Protect Themselves From Marijuana Spillover From Their Legalizing Neighbors, Jessica Berch

Boston College Law Review

Reefer madness is sweeping the nation. Despite a federal ban on marijuana, states have begun to legalize medical and, increasingly, recreational use of the drug. As more states legalize marijuana, their non-legalizing neighbors have seen a distinct uptick in marijuana possession and use—and an attendant increase in crime and accidents. In December 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma, non-legalizing states that border Colorado, a trail-blazer in the full-legalization movement, requested permission to file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court over their neighbor’s lax marijuana controls, which allow cannabis to come into their states. The Supreme Court denied leave to ...

Marijuana, State Extraterritoriality, And Congress, Mark D. Rosen

Boston College Law Review

The Trump administration inherits the Obama administration’s policy of under-enforcing federal marijuana laws and a nation with a patchwork of divergent state laws. Although allowing diversity and experimentation, such divergence may impose spillover costs to some states. Some states may attempt to address these costs by exercising extraterritorial regulatory powers on their citizens. Although it is unclear and a matter of dispute whether and to what extent states have such extraterritorial authority, this Article shows that it is certain that Congress has power to set the bounds of state extraterritorial regulation, subject to only limited constitutional restraints. The Article ...

A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr

Senior Honors Theses

Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem ...

Twenty Reasons To Publish In Dignity, Donna M. Hughes

Dignity: A Journal on Sexual Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.

A Human Rights Perspective To Global Battlefield Detention: Time To Reconsider Indefinite Detention, Yuval Shany

International Law Studies

This article discusses one principal challenge to detention without trial of suspected international terrorists—the international human rights law (IHRL) norm requiring the introduction of an upper limit on the duration of security detention in order to render it not indefinite in length. Part One of this article describes the “hardline” position on security detention, adopted by the United States in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks (followed, with certain variations, by other countries, including the United Kingdom and the State of Israel), according to which international terrorism suspects can be deprived of their liberty without trial ...

The Limits Of Inviolability: The Parameters For Protection Of United Nations Facilities During Armed Conflict, Laurie R. Blank

International Law Studies

This article examines the international legal protections for United Nations humanitarian assistance and other civilian facilities during armed conflict, including under general international law, setting forth the immunities of the United Nations, and the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the relevant legal framework during wartime. Recent conflicts highlight three primary issues: (1) collateral damage to UN facilities as a consequence of strikes on military objectives nearby and military operations in the immediate vicinity; (2) the misuse of UN facilities for military purposes; and (3) direct attacks on fighters, weapons or other equipment that cause damage to such facilities. To identify ...

German Conflict Rules And The Multinational Enterprise, Dagmar Coester-Waltjen

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Abortion, Moral Law, And The First Amendment: The Conflict Between Fetal Rights & Freedom Of Religion, Barbara Pfeffer Billauer

William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law

The status of abortion as murder, and therefore amenable to governmental intervention and criminalization, has been asserted by those favoring limits on abortion. Opponents claim a superior right of privacy and/or equality exists under the Constitution, vesting in a woman the right to decide activities and actions that affect her physical corpus. The claimed interest of a State to protect the fetus is impliedly based on the concept of “morality” or “natural law,” specifically on the premise that feticide is violative of the basic code of conduct of societal norms. To my knowledge, until now, this is the first ...

A Relational Feminist Approach To Conflict Of Laws, Roxana Banu

Michigan Journal of Gender and Law

Feminist writers have long engaged in critiques of private law. Surrogacy contracts or the “reasonable man” standard in torts, for example, have long been the subjects of thorough feminist analysis and critique. When private law issues touch on more than one jurisdiction, Conflict of Laws is the doctrine that determines which jurisdiction can try the case and—as separate questions—which jurisdiction’s law should apply and under what conditions a foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced. Yet, there are virtually no feminist perspectives on Conflict of Laws (also known as Private International Law). This is still more surprising ...

Pennoyer Was Right: Jurisdiction And General Law, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

Pennoyer v. Neff has a bad rap. As an original matter, Pennoyer is legally correct. Compared to current doctrine, it offers a more coherent and attractive way to think about personal jurisdiction and interstate relations generally.

To wit: The Constitution imposes no direct limits on personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction isn't a matter of federal law, but of general law -- that unwritten law, including much of the English common law and the customary law of nations, that formed the basis of the American legal system. Founding-era states were free to override that law and to exercise more expansive jurisdiction. But if ...