Law Commons^™

The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron

Pepperdine Law Review

The underlying purpose of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the HEAR Act), which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective of this country since the conclusion of World War II. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable …

Rethinking Removal And "Relates To": International Arbitration Disputes And The N.Y. Convention, Holly Wilson

University of Richmond Law Review

Part I explores the historical roots of the Convention,

discusses the evolution of its removal provisions, and explains how

it functions in the district courts today. Part II addresses the arguments

in favor of reverting to the Ruhrgas standard. This article

demonstrates that the current judicial interpretation of the Convention's

removal provisions under Beiser is too broad and that the

stricter construction under Ruhrgas should be re-adopted. Part II

examines three key reasons why the current Beiser standard is unworkable:

the current standard (1) leads to absurd results, (2) disrespects

notions of federalism and strains comity, and (3) in conjunction …

Reflections On Judicial Jurisdiction In International Cases, Gary B. Born

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Federal Jurisdiction Over U.S. Citizens' Claims For Violations Of The Law Of Nations In Light Of Sosa, Gwynne Skinner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

Jurisdiction By Cross-Reference, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

State and federal law often cross-reference each other to provide a rule of decision. The difficulties attendant to these cross-referenced schemes are brought to the fore most clearly when a federal court must determine whether such bodies of law create federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal courts have issued scores of seemingly inconsistent opinions on these cross-referential cases. In this article, I offer an ordering principle for these apparently varied, cross-referential, jurisdictional cases. I argue that the federal courts only take federal question jurisdiction over cross-referenced claims when they, from a departmental perspective, maintain declaratory authority over the cross-referenced law. …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In a recent article, we proposed that the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was intended, contrary to the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation, to enlarge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. When Congress considered the Act, jurisdictional concerns centered around whether declaratory judgments would violate the case-or-controversy clause, not whether introduction of the device would expand the federal question jurisdiction Congress already had authorized. There is, indeed, substantial evidence that Congress intended to expand federal question jurisdiction to include at least two, and possibly three, case models; there is virtually no evidence supporting the contrary position taken by the …

Personal Jurisdiction In Federal Question Suits: Toward A Unified And Rational Theory For Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Domiciliary And Alien Defendants, Irene D. Johnson

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No coherent or cohesive procedure or theory has emerged either in regard to the entire question of personal jurisdiction in federal courts or in regard to federal question cases. The cases and courts are in disarray, both as to when a federal standard should apply to the question of amenability to service of process and as to what a federal standard might require. The purpose of this article is to examine the problem in the context of the various types of cases in which it might arise and to prescribe some consistent, sensible scheme of personal jurisdiction in federal question …

Some Problems In Federal Question Jurisdiction, George B. Fraser, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Congress has given the federal district courts original and removal jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, but the power of these courts to hear such cases has been restricted by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court holds that the district courts have jurisdiction of a case if a federal question is raised in the complaint, but jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal question in the answer. This means that the district courts are closed to many cases that involve a substantial federal issue, while many cases …