Law Commons^™

The Court And The Private Plaintiff, Elizabeth Beske

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Two seemingly irreconcilable story arcs have emerged from the Supreme Court over the past decade. First, the Court has definitively taken itself out of the business of creating private rights of action under statutes and the Constitution, decrying such moves as relics of an “ancient regime.” Thus, the Supreme Court has slammed the door on its own ability to craft rights of action under federal statutes and put Bivens, which recognized implied constitutional remedies, into an ever-smaller box. The Court has justified these moves as necessary to keep judges from overstepping their bounds and wading into the province of the …

Sea Level Rise And Maritime Delimitation In The Eastern Caribbean: A Comparative Approach, Rosemarie Cadogan

American University Law Review

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Let me just start by thanking the organizers today for having me on the program, and I want to extend to everyone my gratitude for having me here today. I am going to look at, as the title suggests, sea level rise and maritime delimitation in the Eastern Caribbean, and I am going to take a comparative approach as I compare it with the Pacific–South Pacific region. I am going to take it that all protocols have been observed, and, in the interest of time, I will go straight through to my presentation with the one …

The Failed Idea Of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History, Susan D. Carle

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This essay examines the intellectual history of the idea of judicial restraint, starting with the early debates among the US Constitution’s founding generation. In the late nineteenth century, law professor James Bradley Thayer championed the concept and passed it on to his students and others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter, who modified and applied it based on the jurisprudential preoccupations of a different era. In a masterful account, Brad Snyder examines Justice Frankfurter’s attempt to put the idea into practice. Although Frankfurter arguably made a mess of it, he passed the idea of …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professor Susan Carle In Support Of The Plaintiffs Arguing For Affirmance In Johnson And Tinker V. City Of Boston, Ma, Susan Carle

Amicus Briefs

This brief is being submitted by a law professor, Susan D. Carle, with more than 30 years of expertise in federal employment and antidiscrimination law, and especially the history and purposes of disparate impact law. She submits this brief to share her expertise with this Court. She is currently Professor of Law and Vice Dean of American University Washington College of Law (organizational affiliation is offered for identification purposes only).

Solving The Emerging Technology And National Security Conundrum, Shabbir Hamid

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

The Friendly Skies Are Not Always So Friendly, Rachel Reid

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Extending Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4 (K) (2): A Way To (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess, Patrick J. Borchers

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inadequate Accessibility: Why Uber Should Be A Public Accommodation Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Elizabeth A. Mapelli

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rigging The Rig: The Merits Of American Jurisprudence In Enhancing Jurisdictional Arguments In Nigeria's Oil And Gas Law, Mofe Obadina

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Microsoft Ireland, The Cloud Act, And International Lawmaking 2.0, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

On March 23, President Trump signed the CLOUD Act, 1 thereby mooting one of the most closely watched Supreme Court cases this term: the Microsoft Ireland case. 2 This essay examines these extraordinary and fast-moving developments, explaining how the Act resolves the Supreme Court case and addresses the complicated questions of jurisdiction over data in the cloud. The developments represent a classic case of international lawmaking via domestic regulation, as mediated by major multinational corporations that manage so much of the world's data.

Reining In A 'Renegade' Court: Tc Heartland And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Supreme Court tightened the venue requirement for patent cases, making it more difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a district court has venue over a defendant. Many commentators, however, view TC Heartland as merely a “reshuffling” of the district courts that receive patent cases. Whereas before the case, a large percentage of patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, now, after TC Heartland, various other U.S. district courts (principally, the District of Delaware) have experienced an increase in patent infringement filings. Some commentators are unconvinced that this …

Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Borders And Bits, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Our personal data is everywhere and anywhere, moving across national borders in ways that defy normal expectations of how things and people travel from Point A to Point B. Yet, whereas data transits the globe without any intrinsic ties to territory, the governments that seek to access or regulate this data operate with territorial-based limits. This Article tackles the inherent tension between how governments and data operate, the jurisdictional conflicts that have emerged, and the power that has been delegated to the multinational corporations that manage our data across borders as a result. It does so through the lens of …

Court Capture, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.

This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …

Extending Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4(K)(2): A Way To (Partially) Clean Up The Personal Jurisdiction Mess, Patrick J. Borchers

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Impermissive Counterclaims: Why Nonresident Plaintiffs Can Contest Personal Jurisdiction In Unrelated Countersuits, Jon D. Bressler

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement Access To Data Across Borders: The Evolving Security And Rights Issues, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Global Systemic Risk And International Regulatory Coordination: Squaring Sovereignty And Financial Stability, Federico Lupo-Pasini, Ross P. Buckley

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Un-Territoriality Of Data, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Territoriality looms large in our jurisprudence, particularly as it relates to the government’s authority to search and seize. Fourth Amendment rights turn on whether the search or seizure takes place territorially or extraterritorially; the government’s surveillance authorities depend on whether the target is located within the United States or without; and courts’ warrant jurisdiction extends, with limited exceptions, only to the borders’ edge. Yet the rise of electronic data challenges territoriality at its core. Territoriality, after all, depends on the ability to define the relevant “here” and “there,” and it presumes that the “here” and “there” have normative significance. The …

Hitting A Home Run In Your Writing, David Spratt

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Foreign Investments And The Market For Law, Susan Franck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In this Article, Professors O'Hara O'Connor and Franck adapt and extend Larry Ribstein's positive framework for analyzing the role of jurisdictional competition in the law market. Specifically, the authors provide an institutional framework focused on interest group representation that can be used to balance the tensions underlying foreign investment law, including the desire to compete to attract investments and countervailing preferences to retain domestic policy-making discretion. The framework has implications for the respective roles of BITs and investment contracts as well as the inclusion and interpretation of various foreign investment provisions.

Through Our Glass Darkly: Does Comparative Law Counsel The Use Of Foreign Law In U.S. Constitutional Adjudication?, Kenneth Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This (35 pp.) essay appears as a contribution to a law review symposium on the work of Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon in comparative law. The essay begins by asking what comparative law as a scholarly discipline might suggest about the use of foreign (or unratified or nationally "unaccepted" international law) by US courts in US constitutional adjudication. The trend seemed to be gathering steam in US courts between the early-1990s and mid-2000s, but by the late-2000s, it appeared to be stalled as a practice, notwithstanding the intense scholarly interest throughout this period.

Practical politics within the US …

Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.

Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …

Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …

Kiobel V. Royal Dutch Petroleum: The Alien Tort Statute's Jurisdictional Universalism In Retreat, Kenneth Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), a long-running Alien Tort Statute (ATS) case brought by Nigerian plaintiffs alleging aiding and abetting liability against various multinational oil companies for human rights violations of the Nigerian government in the 1990s, including a non-US Shell corporation, first came before the US Supreme Court in the 2011-2012 term, following a sweeping Second Circuit holding that there was no "liability for corporations" under the ATS. In oral argument, however, several Justices asked a different question from corporate liability: noting that the case involved foreign plaintiffs, foreign defendants, and conduct taking place entirely on foreign sovereign …

Note: "Standing" In The Way Of Equality? The Myth Of Proponent Standing And The Jurisdictional Error In Perry V. Brown, Andrew Kim

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Exercise Of Jurisdiction By The International Criminal Court Over Palestine, William Thomas Worster

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Bring[Ing] Our Enemies To Justice”: Terrorism And The Court, Anna Elazan

Legislation and Policy Brief

This article focuses on the venue of Mohammad’s trial and is broken into three sections. The first section reviews the historical use of military tribunals. This section begins by looking at the basis for Presidential authority to authorize the use of military commissions. This section then outlines the first use of military commissions since World War II. President George W. Bush’s authorization parallels the provisions in President Franklin Roosevelt’s authorization of the use of commissions in the 1940s. However, following authorization, the military commissions were subject to judicial challenges and significant revision by Congress. Finally, this section tracks recent developments …

Significance Of The Fujimori Trial, Juan E. Mendez

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Ending Genetic Monopolies: How The Trips Agreement's Failure To Exclude Gene Patents Thwarts Innovation And Hurts Consumers Worldwide, Cydney A. Fowler

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.