Law Commons^™

The Federal Common Law Of Nations, Anthony J. Bellia, Bradford R. Clark

Anthony J. Bellia

Courts and scholars have vigorously debated the proper role of customary international law in American courts: To what extent should it be considered federal common law, state law, or general law? The debate has reached something of an impasse, in part because various positions rely on, but also are in tension with, historical practice and constitutional structure. This Article describes the role that the law of nations actually has played throughout American history. In keeping with the original constitutional design, federal courts for much of that history enforced certain rules respecting other nations' perfect rights (or close analogues) under the …

State Courts And The Making Of Federal Common Law, Anthony J. Bellia

Anthony J. Bellia

The authority of federal courts to make federal common law has been a controversial question for courts and scholars. Several scholars have propounded theories addressing primarily whether and when federal courts are justified in making federal common law. It is a little-noticed phenomenon that state courts, too, make federal common law. This Article brings to light the fact that state courts routinely make federal common law in as real a sense as federal courts make it. It further explains that theories that focus on whether the making of federal common law by federal courts is justified are inadequate to explain …

Accounting For Federalism In State Courts - Exclusion Of Evidence Obtained Lawfully By Federal Agents, Robert M. Bloom, Hillary J. Massey

Robert Bloom

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, Congress greatly enhanced federal law enforcement powers through enactment of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The Supreme Court also has provided more leeway to federal officers in the past few decades, for example by limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule. At the same time, many states have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater individual protections to their citizens than provided by the federal constitution. This phenomenon has sometimes created a wide disparity between the investigatory techniques available to federal versus state law enforcement officers. As a result, state courts sometimes must decide whether …

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 …

Bates V. Dow Agrosciences: Overcoming Federal Preemption And Giving The People A Voice , Kim Ly

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This note explores the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC. Part II discusses the historical background and procedural history of the case. Part III lays out the facts of the Bates case. Part IV analyzes the majority opinion given by Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer's concurring opinion, and the opinion of Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Part V considers Bates's judicial, legislative and administrative impact. Part VI concludes the discussion of the Bates decision.

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 …

Teaching The U.S. V. Arizona Immigration Law Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Arizona v. U.S. was one of the most anticipated decisions of the Supreme Court's October 2011 term. The case pits the state of Arizona and its immigration policy of "attrition through enforcement" against a much less aggressive federal immigration policy under President Obama.

These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) enumerated powers, (2) preemption, (3) federalism, (4) state sovereignty and more.

2nd Amendment: The Right To Keep & Bear Arms -- Teaching D.C. V. Heller, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The D.C. v. Heller case is an incredible vehicle to teach about the United States Constitution. The case revolves around the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and shines a spotlight on Originalism as a theory of Constitutional interpretation. These slides show how the case evolved from the District Court to the Supreme Court. They also teach the facts of the case and the different opinions on both sides of the debate. In the end, readers will learn a great deal about the Second Amendment and its application to federal and state/local gun control laws as well as …

Federalism As A Preventive Measure: Avoiding State Enforcement Of Federal Anti-Gun Legislation In 2013, Brielle Hunt

Law Student Publications

This comment will delve into the question of whether or not the Constitution allows states to refuse to comply with federal law. This analysis requires the application of a constitutional principle that reaches far beyond the scope of the Right to Bear Arms; it calls into play the vertical separation of powers and the rights belonging to state sovereigns described in the Tenth Amendment. The comment will proceed as follows. Part II will address the constitutionality of House Bill 2340, compared against other kinds of legislation and in light of case law. It will be argued that the Federal Government …