Law Commons^™

United States Extradition Process: Changes In Law To Address Constitutional Infirmity, Benjamin N. Bedrick

Penn State International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Balancing State Sovereignty And Competition: An Analysis Of The Impact Of Seminole Tribe On The Antitrust State Action Immunity Doctrine, Susan Beth Farmer

Journal Articles

The great impact of the Seminole Tribe v. Florida decision will likely be felt in the range of federal causes of action that have exclusive remedies in federal court. Antitrust cases are among such causes of action. In seeking to avoid antitrust liability, defendants have invoked the protections of the antitrust state action doctrine, which immunizes only that anticompetitive activity imposed and supervised by states. This immunity bars suits against state and private actors alike. After Seminole Tribe, state defendants will escape all antitrust liability, whether or not the traditional requirements of the state action doctrine have been met. …

Congruence Principle Applied: Rethinking Equal Protection Review Of Federal Alienage Classifications After Adanrand Constructors, Inc. V. Peña, Victor C. Romero

Journal Articles

This article suggests that the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña constitutes a starting point for a renewed dialogue on the intersection of race, noncitizens' rights, and immigration law.

Part I of this Article examines the historical foundations of the plenary power doctrine up to the current dichotomy between judicial review of state and federal alienage classifications under equal protection. Part II reviews the Adarand decision, arguing that Justice O'Connor's congruence principle provides the bulwark for a revision of judicial review of federal legislation, especially in light of the historical and continuing perception of Asian- and …

The Buck Does Not Stop Here: Supervisory Liability In Section 1983 Cases, Kit Kinports

Journal Articles

The appropriate standard for supervisory liability in Section 1983 cases has been a source of considerable disagreement among federal courts of appeals. In the absence of established Supreme Court authority on the subject, courts have rejected vicarious and negligence liability in favor of a higher culpability requirement, but they have not agreed on precisely what form this higher standard should take. In this article, the Author addresses the need for a uniform standard consistent with the statute's twin goals of compensating the victims of constitutional violations and deterring constitutional infractions.

The author notes at the outset that lower courts have …