Law Commons^™

Silent Today, Conversant Tomorrow: Education Adequacy As A Political Question, Yeju Hwang

Northwestern University Law Review

When the Supreme Court declined to recognize the right to education as one fundamental to liberty, and thus unprotected by the U.S. Constitution, state courts took on the mantle as the next best fora for those yearning for judicial review of inequities present in American public schools. The explicit inclusion of the right to education in each state’s constitution carried the torch of optimism into the late twentieth century. Despite half a century of litigation in the states, the condition of the nation’s public school system remains troubling and perhaps increasingly falls short of expectations. Less competitive on an international …

Climate Change, Corruption, And Colonialism: Solving The Conundrum With Regional Courts, Taylor Nchako

Northwestern University Law Review

It is no secret that climate change is the most pressing issue of our times. Global South countries, especially those in Africa, face challenges mitigating the worst impacts of climate change, adapting technological solutions, and continuing to develop their nation’s infrastructure and industry. Cameroon provides an archetypal example of the challenges many African countries face. Plagued by an economy that both exacerbates climate change and stands to collapse from it, Cameroon struggles with corruption that has roots in colonialism and neocolonialism. This corruption taints not only the forestry service and the executive branch, but the judiciary as well, leaving Cameroon’s …

Foreign Antisuit Injunctions And The Settlement Effect, Connor Cohen

Northwestern University Law Review

International parallel proceedings, which are concurrent identical or similar lawsuits in multiple countries, often ask courts to balance efficiency and fairness against the speculative fear of insulting foreign nations. Some litigants abuse foreign duplicative litigation to exhaust their opponents’ resources and pressure them into settling out of court. This Note provides the first empirical evidence of such abuse of international parallel proceedings: when courts deny motions to enjoin foreign parallel litigation, the settlement rate rises significantly. Considering the results of this empirical project and its limitations, I encourage future studies on international parallel proceedings and settlement. I also argue for …

Muskrat Textualism, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court decision McGirt v. Oklahoma, confirming the boundaries of the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma, was a truly rare case in which the Court turned back arguments by federal and state governments in favor of American Indian and tribal interests. For more than a century, Oklahomans had assumed that the reservation had been terminated and acted accordingly. But only Congress can terminate an Indian reservation, and it simply had never done so in the case of the Creek Reservation. Both the majority and dissenting opinions attempted to claim the mantle of textualism, but their respective analyses led to …

Article Iii And The Political Question Doctrine, Scott Dodson

Northwestern University Law Review

Courts and commentators have often sourced the political question doctrine in Article III, a repository of other separation-of-powers doctrines applicable to the federal courts. Rucho v. Common Cause, a blockbuster political question case decided in 2019, explicitly tied the doctrine to Article III. But the historical development of the doctrine undermines the depth of that connection. Further, sourcing the doctrine in Article III leads to some very odd effects, including leaving state courts free to answer federal political questions. This Article argues that the source of the political question doctrine is in substantive law, not in Article III. Such …

Policy Considerations And Implications In United States V. Bryant, Jessica Larsen

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern University Law Review

Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered—Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are some underappreciated …

Sovereign Preemption State Standing, Jonathan Remy Nash

Northwestern University Law Review

When does a state have standing to challenge the Executive Branch’s alleged underenforcement of federal law? The issue took on importance during the Obama Administration, with “red states” suing the Executive Branch over numerous issues, including immigration and health care. The question of state standing has already appeared in important litigation during the first months of the Trump Administration, only with the political orientation of the actors reversed.

This Article argues in favor of sovereign preemption state standing, under which a state would enjoy Article III standing to sue the federal government when (1) the federal government preempts state law …

Adverse Interests And Article Iii: A Reply, James E. Pfander, Daniel Birk

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars and jurists have long sought an explanation for why the Framers of Article III distinguished “Cases” from “Controversies.” In a previous article that cataloged the exercise of federal jurisdiction over uncontested matters, such as pension claims, warrant applications, and naturalization proceedings, we tried to provide an answer to this question. We suggested that, at least as to “cases” arising under federal law, the federal courts could exercise what Roman and civil lawyers called non-contentious jurisdiction or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, could hear uncontested claims of right in the form prescribed by law. As for “controversies,” by …

Adverse Interests And Article Iii, Ann Woolhandler

Northwestern University Law Review

In an important article in the Yale Law Journal, James Pfander and Daniel Birk claim that adverseness is not required by Article III for cases arising under federal law. This Article takes the position that Pfander and Birk have not made the case for reconsidering adversity requirements for Article III cases. Adverseness may be present when there is adversity of legal interests, even when adverse argument is not present. From this perspective, a number of Pfander and Birk’s examples of non-contentious jurisdiction manifested adverseness. In rem-type proceedings such as bankruptcy and prize cases required the determination of adverse interests, …

War By Legislation: The Constitutionality Of Congressional Regulation Of Detentions In Armed Conflicts, Christopher M. Ford

Northwestern University Law Review

In this essay, Ford considers provisions of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which place restrictions on the disposition of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay. These provisions raise substantial separation of powers issues regarding the ability of Congress to restrict detention operations of the Executive. These restrictions, and similar restrictions found in earlier NDAAs, specifically implicate the Executive's powers in foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief. Ford concludes that, with the exception of a similar provision found in the 2013 NDAA, the restrictions are constitutional.

The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards

Northwestern University Law Review

In recent years, federal courts have heard, without clear subject matter jurisdiction, contract disputes involving billions of dollars worth of securitized financial instruments (SFIs). These SFI disputes are litigated in federal court under the federal interpleader statute, which specifies that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases only when parties deposit the disputed amount with the court. SFI litigants have ignored this requirement, so courts have, at best, uncertain jurisdiction over these cases. Why have no parties raised the jurisdictional defect, even though some would stand to gain from raising it? This Essay advances game theoretical explanations …

An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins

Northwestern University Law Review

28 U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final “judicial” decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are “administrative.” Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating …

Digging Up The Corp(Ses): Holston Investments V. Lanlogistics Corp. And The Continuing Struggle To Determine The Citizenship Of Dissolved And Inactive Corporations For The Purposes Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Nicholas W. Roosevelt

Northwestern University Law Review

Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have been divided on how to determine the citizenship of dissolved or inactive corporations for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, courts of appeals addressing the issue had settled on one of three conclusions: (1) citizenship should be determined only by the corporation’s state of incorporation; (2) citizenship should be determined both by the corporation’s state of incorporation and its last principal place of business; or (3) citizenship should always be determined by the corporation’s state of incorporation, but only be determined by principal …

Cases, Controversies, And Diversity, F. Andrew Hessick

Northwestern University Law Review

Article III’s diversity jurisdiction provisions extend the federal judicial power to state law controversies between different states or nations and their respective citizens. When exercising diversity jurisdiction, the federal judiciary does not function in its usual role of protecting federal interests or ensuring the uniformity of federal law. Instead, federal courts operate as alternative state courts for resolving disputes between diverse parties. But federal courts often cannot act as alternative state courts because of Article III justiciability doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness. These doctrines define when a federal court may act. But they do not apply to state …

The Demise Of "Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings", Howard M. Wasserman

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Foucauldian Call For The Archaeological Excavation Of Discourse In The Post-Boumediene Habeas Litigation, Jonathan David Shaub

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity, Constitutional Stagnation, And The Global War On Terror, Sarah L. Lochner

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Morris V. Allen And The Lost History Of The Anti-Injunction Act Of 1793, James E. Pfander, Nassim Nazemi

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erie's International Effect: A Reply, Donald Earl Childress Iii

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Erie's International Effect, Michael Steven Green

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

A Tort Statute, With Aliens And Pirates, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

The pirates of the Caribbean are back. Not in another fantastical film but in the litigation over the reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For the first time since they dealt with the legal issues raised by a wave of maritime predation in the Caribbean in the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices are seriously discussing piracy. This crime has emerged as the test case for evaluating the major controversies about the reach of the statute -- namely, extraterritorial application and the existence of corporate liability. At oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, justices of all persuasions …

Discretion, Delegation, And Defining In The Constitution's Law Of Nations Clause, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

Never in the nation's history has the scope and meaning of Congress's power to "Define and Punish. . . Offenses Against the Law of Nations" mattered as much. The once obscure power has in recent years been exercised in broad and controversial ways, ranging from civil human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statue (ATS) to military commissions trials in Guantanamo Bay. Yet it has not yet been recognized that these issues both involve the Offenses Clauses, and indeed raise common constitutional questions.First, can Congress only "Define" offenses that clearly already exist in international law, or does it have discretion …

State Law Holocaust-Era Art Claims And Federal Executive Power, Jennifer Anglim Kreder

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

The Demise Of “Drive-By Jurisdictional Rulings”, Howard M. Wasserman

NULR Online

In an October 2009 Term marked by several significant constitutional rulings, the Supreme Court quietly continued an important multi-term effort towards defining which legal rules properly should be called "jurisdictional." In each of four cases that considered the issue, the Court unanimously rejected a jurisdictional characterization of the challenged legal rule. These cases continue an almost uninterrupted retreat from the Court's admittedly "profligate" and "less than meticulous" use of the term. The Court now rejects "drive-by jurisdictional rulings," in which a legal rule has been labeled as jurisdictional only through "unrefined" analysis, without rigorous consideration of the label's meaning or …

Three Obstacles To The Promotion Of Corporate Social Responsibility By Means Of The Alien Tort Claims Act: The Sosa Court's Incoherent Conception Of The Law Of Nations, The "Purposive" Action Requirement For Aiding And Abetting, And The State Action Requirement For Primary Liability, David A. Dana, Michael Barsa

Faculty Working Papers

The ATCA could be a powerful tool to promote corporate CSR, especially in developing countries where local legal restraints are weak. But despite the good normative reasons why the ATCA should be used in this way, serious obstacles remain. The Supreme Court's ahistorical and incoherent formulation of the "law of nations" fails to promote the development of the ATCA in ways that would cover even serious environmental harm. Also, the federal courts' confused jurisprudence concerning aiding and abetting and state action creates too many loopholes through which egregious corporate behavior may slip unpunished. In order to overcome these obstacles, we …

An Empirical Examination Of Universal Jurisdiction For Piracy, Eugene Kontorovich, Steven Art

Faculty Working Papers

This Essay presents the first systematic empirical study of the incidence of universal jurisdiction prosecutions over an international crime. Using data on the number of piracies committed in a twelve year period (1998-2009) obtained from international agencies and maritime industry groups, we determine the percentage of acts of piracy where nations prosecuted under universal jurisdiction we determine the percentage of these cases where nations exercised UJ. Studies of the worldwide use of UJ over other crimes simply count how often UJ has been exercised, but do not attempt to determine the rate of prosecution.

We find that of all clearly …

There Is No Norm Of Intervention Or Non-Intervention In International Law, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

Comments on Prof. Jianming Shen's position that humanitarian intervention is unlawful under international law and that there is a principle of non-intervention in international law that is so powerful that it amounts to a jus cogens prohibition.

Interlocutory Review By Agreement Of The Parties: A Preliminary Analysis, James Pfander, Dave Pekarek-Krohn

Faculty Working Papers

Although the nineteenth century's final judgment rule no longer represents an absolute barrier to interlocutory appellate review, scholars disagree about what should take its place. Some favor a regime of discretionary interlocutory review, with power conferred on appellate courts to select issues that warrant intervention. Others reject discretionary review as a waste of appellate resources and call upon the rule makers to identify specific categories of non-final orders that always warrant review. While the Supreme Court's collateral order doctrine bears some similarity to this process of categorization, the Court may have called a halt to the judicial recognition of new …