Law Commons^™

Should The President’S Words Matter In Court?, Katherine A. Shaw

Online Publications

The most striking aspect of last Thursday’s opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which rejected the Trump administration’s latest effort to revive its travel ban for individuals from six predominantly Muslim countries, was its reliance on Donald Trump’s own words as candidate, president-elect and president. The court leaned particularly heavily on his now-famous campaign statement that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

The Burdens Of Pleading, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

To preview my argument briefly, plausibility pleading formally asks judges—for the first time since the advent of the Federal Rules—to engage in a merits-based analysis at the pleading stage based on their “judicial experience and common sense.” Judges are expected to engage in this inquiry with only the factual allegations in the complaint at their disposal. Putting aside the difficulty of conducting this analysis under the best of circumstances, our federal judges have extremely limited judicial experience to apply to merits-based decisions. The number of trials, the ultimate arbiter of merit, has fallen precipitously in the past fifty years. Trials …

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Articles

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Symposium: The Challengingly Uncategorizable Recess Appointments Clause, Michael Herz

Online Publications

I fear that I am participating in this discussion under false pretenses, because I have no idea how the Court will decide National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. And the reasons go far beyond the fact that this is a case of first impression or the possibility that the whole thing is a nonjusticiable political question. I am not going to review the substantive arguments for and against the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Instead, I will touch on some other aspects of the recess appointments issue that make it a particularly hard one to guess about.

Chevron'S Regrets: The Persistent Vitality Of The Nondelegation Doctrine, Michael C. Pollack

Articles

Since the Chevron decision in 1984, courts have extended to administrative agencies a high level of deference when those agencies reasonably interpret ambiguous statutes, reasoning that agencies have more technical expertise and public accountability than courts. However, when the agency’s interpretation implicates a significant policy choice, courts do not always defer. At times, they rely on principles of nondelegation to rule against the agency interpretation and require that choices be made by Congress instead.

Chevron makes no explicit exception for significant policy choices, but in cases like MCI v. AT&T and FDA v. Brown & Williamson, the Supreme Court …

After Deference: Formalizing The Judicial Power For Foreign Relations Law, Deborah Pearlstein

Articles

How much deference should courts afford executive branch interpretations of statutes and treaties? The question that has long engaged foreign relations scholars has found new salience as it has become apparent in recent years that the Supreme Court will neither abstain nor reliably defer to presidential judgment even in cases implicating national security. As the courts grapple with the scope of detention authority granted by Congress’ 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or the limits on that authority under the Geneva Conventions, a number of scholars have embraced administrative law deference doctrines such as that in Chevron v. …

Brief For Amici Curiae National Immigration Project Of The National Lawyers Guild, National Police Accountability Project, And Legal Services For Children In Support Of Petitioner, Betsy Ginsberg

Amicus Briefs

Amici have a substantial interest in the outcome of this case. The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA" or the "Act") provides compensation for victims of government negligence and abuse. All too often, those cases arise in the immigration and law enforcement contexts, like the case at issue here. They arise when American citizens are unlawfully detained or deported. They arise when people in immigration detention are mistreated or denied proper medical care. And they arise when immigration officials engage in unlawful home raids.

A robust and uniform Federal Tort Claims Act is essential both to compensating victims and to preventing …