Law Commons^™

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Of Penalties For Possession Of Contraband Phones By Inmates And A Proposal To Increase The Federal Penalty, Andrew W. Eichner

Touro Law Review

The federal penalty for possession of a contraband phone by an inmate is currently a statutory maximum of one year of imprisonment, which is a Class A misdemeanor. This Article surveys 56 jurisdictions from across the United States (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and discovers that the federal penalty for this offense is much lower than the national average for comparable offenses, which is an average statutory maximum of five years of imprisonment. To rectify this discrepancy, the Article proposes …