Law Commons^™

The Loudest Voice At The Supreme Court: The Solicitor General’S Dominance Of Amicus Oral Argument, Darcy Covert, Annie J. Wang

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Solicitor General (“SG”) is often called the “Tenth Justice,” a title that captures his unique relationship with the Supreme Court and his independence from the executive branch. No phenomenon better reflects this relationship than the Court’s practice of permitting amici to participate in oral argument. Although amicus oral argument is nominally available to all litigants, the modern Court grants this privilege almost exclusively to the SG. Scholars and Court watchers have long argued that this practice is justified because the SG uses it to pursue the rule of law and an objective sense of “justice.”

This Article challenges that …

The 'Mandatory' Nature Of The Hague Service Convention In The United States Is The Forum's Victory, Rita M. Alliss

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Note addresses the current United States approach to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The Note recognizes a split in United States case law concerning whether strict compliance with the Hague Service Convention is required. While some United States courts focus on the scope of the Convention and United States due process concepts to avoid strict compliance, other courts, especially state courts, require strict compliance with the Convention under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. The author focuses on service on foreign state corporations by substituted …

Jurisdiction By Necessity: Examining One Proposal For Unbarring The Doors Of Our Courts, Tracy L. Troutman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Although the usually proclaimed goals of the United States legal system are "fair play and justice," a person who is injured in some way, who feels that he has had his rights violated, or who seeks to enforce a business agreement, may not necessarily have a remedy in its judicial system. Often a court may claim it lacks power to hear a case because it does not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the suit. Another motive of a court for refusing to hear the case may be simply the necessity to clear its docket. One …

The Due Process Mandate And The Constitutionality Of Admiralty Arrests And Attachments Pursuant To Supplemental Rules B And C, Jon L. Goodman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In the past decade, the area of procedural due process, including traditional doctrines of in rem and quasi in rem jurisdiction, has undergone a constitutional facelift. As a result, two of admiralty's most extraordinary features--maritime attachment and garnishment and actions in rem--have been questioned from a constitutional standpoint.

The United States Supreme Court inaugurated the new era with its decision in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. In that case, the Court first began changing its procedural due process philosophy by broadening its conception of constitutionally protected forms of property. Having narrowly addressed itself to the question of what constitute constitutionally …

The Supreme Court And Fundamental Rights--A Problem Of Judicial Method, James H. Wildman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Since the Constitution is a plan of written but flexible basic rights, interpreted and applied by a judiciary with few limitations upon its powers, it is necessary to avoid conferring carte blanche discretion upon the Court. This Note adopts the premises that we may be arriving at an era when "liberty" will demand constitutional protection of human interests other than those explicitly embodied within the text of the Bill of Rights; that judicial identification of those interests is often the most effective method for granting this protection; and that the function of constitutional due process is to preserve the relevancy …