Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell Jan 2023

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 …


Hearing On The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Coronavirus, And Addressing China’S Culpability Before The Senate Committee On The Judiciary, Russell A. Miller Jun 2020

Hearing On The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Coronavirus, And Addressing China’S Culpability Before The Senate Committee On The Judiciary, Russell A. Miller

Scholarly Articles

There are a number of theories about the Chinese government’s acts or omissions concerning the emergence and world-wide spread of the coronavirus that may be the proximate cause of actionable transboundary harm. All of these theories start with the incontestable fact that the coronavirus outbreak originated in China. One theory is concerned with the conduct of the Chinese government after the health crisis emerged. This “ex post” theory alleges a broad range of acts and omissions that helped transform a local outbreak into a global pandemic. There is room for this theory under the Transboundary Harm Principle. But the “ex …


An Uncertain Future For Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act: The Need For A Revised Bailout System, Christopher B. Seaman Jan 2010

An Uncertain Future For Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act: The Need For A Revised Bailout System, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder ("NAMUDNO"), 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), the Supreme Court declined to decide one of last Term's most prominent issues: the constitutionality of the 2006 renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Court adopted an unexpected statutory construction permitting the plaintiff to seek an exemption called "bailout" from continued coverage under this provision. But even though the Court avoided directly ruling on its constitutionality, NAMUDNO left little doubt that Section 5 remains on shaky constitutional ground. A revised bailout system is likely the best approach for placing …