Law Commons^™

Preempting Private Prisons, Christopher Matthew Burgess

Washington Law Review

In 2019 and 2021, respectively, California and Washington enacted laws banning the operation of private prisons within each state, including those operated by private companies in contracts with the federal government. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to contract with private prisons through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of non-United States citizens. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom that federal immigration law preempted California’s private prison ban.

Preemption—when federal law supersedes state law—is a doctrinal thicket. Federal courts analyze preemption issues in multiple different ways in a particular case, often …

Preemption And Textualism, Daniel J. Meltzer

Michigan Law Review

In the critically important area of preemption, the Supreme Court’s approach to statutory interpretation differs from the approach it follows elsewhere. Whether in politically salient matters, like challenges to Arizona’s immigration laws, or in more conventional cases, such as those in which state tort liability overlaps with federal regulation, the Court’s preemption decisions reflect a highly purposive approach to reading statutes, most notably through the application of “obstacle preemption” analysis. Recently, however, Justice Thomas has objected to the Court’s failure in preemption cases to respect its more textualist approach to issues of statutory interpretation, and he has urged that obstacle …

Preemption And Choice-Of-Law Coordination, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein

Michigan Law Review

The doctrine treating federal preemption of state law has been plagued by uncertainty and confusion. Part of the problem is that courts purport to interpret congressional intent when often Congress has never considered the particular preemption question at issue. This Article suggests that courts deciding preemption cases should take seriously a commonly articulated rationale for the federalization of law: the need to coordinate applicable legal standards in order to facilitate a national market or to otherwise provide clear guidance to parties regarding the laws that apply to their conduct. In situations where federal law can serve a coordinating function but …

A Presumption Against Agency Preemption, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

Federal agencies are increasingly taking aim at state law, even though state law is not expressly targeted by the statutes the agencies administer. Starting in 2001, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued several notices saying that state laws would apply to national bank operating subsidiaries (incorporated under state law) to the same extent as those laws applied to the parent national bank. In 2003, the OCC specifically mentioned state consumer protection laws and took the position that the state laws were preempted and did not apply to mortgage lenders owned by national banks. In December 2006, …

Chevron And Preemption, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

This Article takes a more functional approach to reconciling preemption doctrine with Chevron when Congress has not expressly delegated preemptive authority to an agency, an approach that considers a variety of concerns, including political accountability, institutional competence, and related concerns. The Article assumes that federalism values, such as ensuring core state regulatory authority and autonomy, are important and can be protected through political processes." It argues that although Congress's "regional structure" might hint at great sensitivity to state concerns, it actually may lead Congress to undervalue some federalism benefits that are more national in nature. Meanwhile, executive agencies generally have …

The Four Doctrines Of Self-Executing Treaties, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are "self-executing" and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction--indeed, its very existence--is a matter of some controversy and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the "most confounding" in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson's observation that " [t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion" surrounding it. The …

State And Local Regulation Affecting Public Lands Mineral Lease Activities: What Are The Limits?, Lawrence J. Macdonnell

Public Lands Mineral Leasing: Issues and Directions (Summer Conference, June 10-11)

27 pages.

Contains references.

Extent And Limits Of Federal Power [Outline], George A. Gould

New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10)

3 pages.

Interstate Water Compacts, John A. Carver

New Sources of Water for Energy Development and Growth: Interbasin Transfers: A Short Course (Summer Conference, June 7-10)

33 pages.

Contains references.

After "Life For Erie--A Reply, Peter Westen

Michigan Law Review

Erie, having "preoccupied the intellectually dominant group of academic lawyers rising to maturity during the 1940's and 1950's," is reported to be losing its "symbolic centrality" for the newest generation of legal scholars. Professor Redish's prompt and excited response to our essay proves one thing: there is at least one scholar in the country who, having come to legal maturity during the last decade, still remains capable of becoming impassioned about Erie RR v. Tompkins.

Continuing The Erie Debate: A Response To Westen And Lehman, Martin H. Redish

Michigan Law Review

Although the Supreme Court has not spoken in detail on the Erie doctrine since its much-discussed decision in Hanna v. Plumer in 1965, commentary on the doctrine in the literature has undergone something of a "boomlet" in the last several years. Much of it has been stimulated by the groundbreaking article by Professor John Hart Ely in 1974. The latest contribution to the area is the recent article by Professor Peter Westen and Mr. Jeffrey Lehman appearing earlier this year in this journal. Unfortunately, their article does little to advance analysis of the Erie question, and contains numerous fundamental misstatements …

Is There Life For Erie After The Death Of Diversity?, Peter Westen, Jeffrey S. Lehman

Michigan Law Review

This Article is essentially an elaboration of these three themes. Section I sets forth the fundamental principles, or "axioms," that determine whether a particular federal rule is pertinent and valid. Once these axioms are understood, it should become apparent that Erie problems, if not easy, are not uniquely difficult either; instead, they are the kinds of "ordinary" problems that are commonplace in other areas of law. Section II applies these axioms to cases in diversity to determine the validity of various kinds of federal rules of decision. Section III examines the validity of federal rules of decision in federal question …

State Control Over The Reclamation Waterhole: Reality Or Mirage, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note assesses how much state law section 8 saves from preemption. Section I reviews the interplay of state and federal water law in the West. It begins with a brief description of appropriation, the system of water rights found in the Western states, outlines the Reclamation Act of 1902, and then traces the Supreme Court's evolving construction of the Act. It culminates in a discussion of California v. United States, the Court's latest gloss on section 8. Section II expands the analysis of the California decision, integrating it with traditional preemption doctrine. It shows that section 8 respects …

Legislation - Witness Immunity Act Of 1954 - Constitutional And Interpretative Problem, George S. Flint S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The passage in August, 1954 of a federal statute granting immunity under specified conditions to witnesses before congressional committees and in the federal courts marks a third legislative experiment designed to soften the effect of the Fifth Amendment as a limitation on the investigatory power of Congress. The first two attempts were less than successful. This comment will discuss the historical background of immunity legislation, and some possible constitutional pitfalls and problems of construction created by the statutory language.

Labor Law - State Jurisdiction Over Acts Which Are Unfair Labor Practices Under Federal Labor Legislation, Eugene Alkema S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Extensive federal labor legislation under the commerce clause has created a perplexing jurisdictional problem in the state courts, which are confronted increasingly with the critical issue of possible conflict with a federal preemptive area of operation. The extent to which the federal government has superseded state jurisdiction over labor matters has remained unsettled under the current case law and the legislative history of the federal acts, and the need for clarification is apparent at a time when labor cases are reaching the courts in increasing numbers. It is natural for unions to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction in …