Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1789 Judiciary Act (1)
- Alien Tort Statute (1)
- Bounded universality (1)
- Circuit courts (1)
- Complementarity (1)
-
- Congress (1)
- Connection to the forum (1)
- Consensus on conduct (1)
- District courts (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal question jurisdiction (1)
- Horizontal enforcement (1)
- Juciary Act (1)
- McCullion-Floeter test (1)
- Nationality (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Removal (1)
- Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law (1)
- State courts (1)
- Territory (1)
- Trials (1)
- United States (1)
- Universal civil jurisdiction (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson
When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …
The Three C'S Of Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Claims In U.S. Courts, Chimène I. Keitner
The Three C'S Of Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Claims In U.S. Courts, Chimène I. Keitner
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The legal aftermath of the Holocaust continues to unfold in U.S. courts. Most recently, the Seventh Circuit dismissed claims against the Hungarian national railway and Hungarian national bank for World War II-era crimes against Hungarian Jews on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not exhausted available local remedies in Hungary or provided a “legally compelling” reason for not doing so. More broadly, heated debates about the role of U.S. courts in enforcing international human rights law have not abated since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which restricted but did not eliminate federal …