Law Commons^™

Behind The Parity Debate: The Decline Of The Legal Process Tradition In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Whether there is parity between federal and state courts has become a central question in the law of federal courts, dividing judges and commentators into two well-defined camps. Although the issue rarely arose thirty years ago, it now enters into virtually every discussion of the rules concerning access to federal court for constitutional claims. On one side of the debate, advocates of broad federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to state action claim that federal courts are better than state courts at adjudicating these controversies. On the other side, advocates of state court jurisdiction insist that state courts are fully adequate …

The Constitutional Case Against Intracircuit Nonacquiescence, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

A cornerstone of the United States Constitution is its separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the national government. The Framers of the Constitution reasoned that separated powers would guard against tyranny by blocking the undue concentration of authority in any single governmental department. In crafting the Constitution, however, the Framers could not anticipate every dispute their scheme of separated powers might engender. One modern separation-of-powers conflict not specifically anticipated by the constitutional text involves so-called "intracircuit nonacquiescence.”

Intracircuit nonacquiescence occurs when executive-branch decision makers refuse to follow a circuit court's precedents even when acting subject …

International Year In Review: Developments In International Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on recent developments in International Criminal Law.

Finding Harmony Amidst Disagreement Over Extradition, Jurisdiction, The Role Of Human Rights, And Issues Of Extraterritoriality Under International Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

This Article examines extradition and jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime, focusing on the relationship between jurisdiction and extradition in the broader context of human rights law. The authors challenge what they argue are chimerical, although strongly held beliefs in the incompatibility of European and United States criminal justice systems and extradition practices. They argue that cooperation in matters of international criminal law may be enhanced, while protection of human rights is promoted. The authors establish this possibility by breaking down the barriers to understanding that stem from the divergent European versus Anglo-American modes of analysis.

The authors first analyze the five …

Authoritarianism And The Rule Of Law, Lynne Henderson

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

International Law Principles Governing The Extraterritorial Application Of Criminal Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on the differences and similarities between Germany and the United States on international principles of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime.

Immunity From Regulatory Price Squeeze Claims: From Keogh, Parker, And Noerr To Town Of Concord And Beyond, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

On September 21, 1990, the First Circuit handed down its decision in Town of Concord, Massachusetts v. Boston Edison Co. This case, the most recent in a growing line of court of appeals decisions examining the antitrust implications of public utility rate structures, represents the first time a United States court of appeals has unequivocally stated that an antitrust action based upon a “price squeeze” could not be maintained against a utility whose wholesale and retail rates were both fully regulated. Town of Concord notwithstanding, the courts are far from agreeing whether investor-owned electric or natural gas utilities are immune …

Against An Elite Federal Judiciary: Comments On The Report Of The Federal Courts Study Committee, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

No doubt some reform of the federal courts is essential if they are to cope with the proliferation of litigation over the past thirty years and the resulting "congestion, delay, expense, and expansion" in the federal courts. While the problem may not amount to an "impending crisis", the burgeoning caseload surely poses a threat, at least in the long run, to the ability of the federal courts to function effectively. The hard question is not whether something should be done, but what to do about it. There is no shortage of interesting ideas. Some of the ideas that clamor for …

Major Contemporary Issues In Extradition Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on high crimes in international law, and the ability to extradite state and high government officials for committing them.

The Unimportance Of Precedence In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Part I of this Article asserts that the Supreme Court pays little attention to precedent in federal courts law. My examples in support of this claim are taken from important areas of federal courts doctrine, where two major upheavals have taken place in the past thirty years. First, the Warren Court rewrote the law to expand access to federal court. then under Chief Justice Burger, the Court undid many of the changes wrought by its predecessor. The discussion in Part I of prominent departures from precedent is not offered as decisive proof that stare decisis is less important in federal …

Pitfalls Of Public Policy: The Case Of Arbitration Agreements, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As the juxtaposition of these quotations suggests, judges have long held disparate views on the legitimacy and value of “public policy” considerations as a basis for legal decision making. The popular notion posits that Justice Holmes and legal realists carried the day, making public policy analysis an ordinary part of the adjudication process. The story, of course, is more complex than this legal version of Don Quixote. Many judges and lawyers, including Justice Holmes in other writings, continued to speak of adjudication in more formalist and positivist terms, with most laypersons in apparent agreement. Judge Burroughs' view of public policy …

The Impact Of Substantive Interests On The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

The thesis of this Article is that substantive factors exert a powerful and often unrecognized influence over the resolution of jurisdictional issues, and have done so throughout our history. The chief substantive factors at issue are the government's interest iin regulating behavior on the one hand, and the individual's interest in enforcing constitutional restraints upon government on the other. Part I of this Article examines the relationship between jurisdictional rules and substantive consequences, Part II describes the Court's conventional account of federal courts doctrine in terms of jurisdictional policy and institutional roles, and Part III shows that the reasons set …

To Defer Or Not To Defer: A Study Of Federal Circuit Court Deference To District Court Rulings On State Law, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Federal courts of appeals often grant special deference to district court rulings on matters of state law. This practice is important. It is also ill-conceived. This Article explores this "rule of deference." Section I considers the roots and reach of the rule. Together with the Appendices to this Article, it seeks to detail for practitioners, commentators, and judges the way the rule operates in the courts. The remaining sections of this Article consider the wisdom of the rule of deference. Section II argues that the rule lacks a sound rationale and Section III urges that the rule has bad effects …

A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View Of Summary Judgment, Directed Verdict, And The Value Of Adjudication, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As almost anyone alive during the past decade knows, this is the era of the ‘litigation explosion,’ or there is at least the perception that a litigation explosion exists. Although all agree that the absolute number of lawsuits has increased in virtually every corner of the state and federal court systems, there exists vigorous debate about whether the increase is unusual in relative or historical terms and even more vigorous debate about whether the absolute increase in cases symbolizes the American concern for fairness and justice or represents a surge in frivolous or trivial disputes needlessly clogging the courts. As …

Is Disparity A Problem?, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Part I describes aspects of the historical and doctrinal background of judicial federalism. Part II examines the Court's treatment of the parity issue and shows how the Court's ambiguity permits both sides of the debate to avoid revealing their true objectives. Part III demonstrates that some, but not all, of the allocation doctrine can be explained in terms of a conflict between the plaintiff's litigating interest and the state's interest in maintaining the integrity of the state judicial process. A significant body of cases, however, does not fall within this framework. In these cases the Court seems to prefer state …

Rehnquist, Recusal, And Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In September 1986, the Senate confirmed William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the United States by a vote of 66 to 33, an unusually close vote for a successful Supreme Court nominee. Although Justice Rehnquist’s elevation from Associate to Chief Justice engendered substantial criticism because of his judicial philosophy, past political activity, and possible views on race relations, the most serious threat to his nomination arose from his decision fifteen years earlier to sit and cast the deciding vote in a Supreme Court case in which many questioned both his impartiality and his candor. That Justice Rehnquist's role in …

Terrorism And The Constitution, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

How do terrorism and the Iran-Contra hearings relate to the Constitution? My thesis is that there is a tendency for the executive of this or any nation to eschew even constitutionally mandated avenues of problem solving considered to be cumbersome, inefficient, or inimical to the executive’s vision of the national interest in foreign affairs. There is also a tendency to consider one’s own conduct and the conduct of one’s allies and friends to be justified when it is directed at goals deemed by the executive branch to be good. Constitutional provisions based on the checks and balances and separation of …

The Evisceration Of The Political Offense Exception To Extradition, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

The Supplementary Convention to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of American and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was signed on June 25, 1985, and transmitted to the U.S. Senate on July 17, 1985. This article will focus on the portion of the supplementary treaty which effectively eliminates the political offense exception, and on the statement made by the Legal Adviser to the Department of State, the honorable Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, made in favor of the Supplementary Treaty, on August 1, 1985. This article suggests that approval of …

Child Custody - Jurisdiction And Procedure, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Custody determinations traditionally have comprised a subcategory of litigation under the Pennoyer v. Neff exception for proceedings relating to status. Of course, states have the power to decide the status of their domiciliaries. It was natural, therefore, for the courts and scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to consider domicile the sole basis of jurisdiction in custody matters. Gradually, judges and scholars began to challenge the notion that domicile was the sole basis and courts began to apply other bases, such as the child's presence in the state or personal jurisdiction over both parents. One commentator suggests that …

A House Of Lords' Judgment, And Other Tales Of The Absurd, Alan Watson

Scholarly Works

In this paper I want to look at four approaches to deciding a case in different societies-contemporary England, uncodified civil or 'mixed' law systems (with an example from 17th century Scot-land and another from early 20th century South Africa), 19th century France after codification, 15th century Germany with a glance at 13th and 14th century Spain-where the attempt is made each time to reach the correct decision by applying the mental process thought most appropriate. None of the approaches examined here is result-oriented, and to outsiders, especially to lawyers brought up in a different legal culture, the mental process seems …

Why Professor Redish Is Wrong About Abstention, Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

Most critics of the Supreme Court's abstention doctrines have attacked the substantive merits of rules that channel constitutional litigation away from federal courts and into state courts instead. In a recent article, Martin Redish raises an interesting objection to abstention from a different perspective. He addresses the institutional legitimacy of the rules and contends that whatever their merits, rules like these should be made only by Congress and not the Supreme Court, for they contravene Congress' intent to grant federal courts jurisdiction over constitutional claims against state actors. Part I of this article describes the context in which the choice …

A Conceptual Framework For Extradition And Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

International law is the language by which nations assert and attempt to resolve competing legal interests. As with any other language, if the definitions of essential concepts become muddled, it is difficult to communicate. The traditional bases of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crime are essential concepts in the language of international law. The decision to grant or deny extradition, for example, often depends on whether the interested nation recognizes the basis of jurisdiction asserted by another. Confusion over the traditional bases of jurisdiction therefore risks disagreement over and denial of extradition.

United States courts have recently expanded the traditional bases of …

Medical Dependency In Arizona, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

Analysis of In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459 (Ariz. 1982).

United States Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

The term jurisdiction may be defined as the authority to affect legal interests -- to prescribe rules of law (legislative jurisdiction), to adjudicate legal questions (judicial jurisdiction) and to enforce judgments the judiciary made (enforcement jurisdiction). The definition, nature and scope of jurisdiction vary depending on the context in which it is to be applied. United States domestic law, for example, defines and applies notions of jurisdiction pursuant to the United States constitutional provisions relating to the separation of powers. Within the United States, jurisdiction is defined and applied in a variegated fashion depending on whether a legal problem is …

The Role Of Comity In The Law Of Federal Courts, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Considerations of comity often require federal courts to defer to state courts when federal issues could be raised in state proceedings. Contexts in which such deference is required include Younger abstention, habeus corpus exhaustion and procedural default, and Pullman and Burford abstention. In this Article, Professor Wells demonstrates that the Supreme Court's opinions fail to make a distinction between cases where comity requires restraint and those where it does not. The Court's motive in invoking comity is not to decrease access to federal courts, but instead to strike a compromise between the individual's interest in a federal forum and the …

Extradition Between France And The United States: An Exercise In Comparative And International Law, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

In 1878 Cardaillac defined extradition as “the right for a State on the territory of which an accused or convicted person has take refuge, to deliver him up to another State wich has requisitioned his return and is competent to judge and punish him.” The term “extradition” was imported to the United States from France, where the decret-loi of Febraury 19, 1791, appears to be the first official document to have used the term. The term is not found in treaties or conventions until 1828. The Latin equivalent to extradition, “tradere”, is not found in early Latin works, but the …

Preliminary Injunctions And Abstention: Some Problems In Federalism, Michael L. Wells

Scholarly Works

Suppose a federal district court faces a challenge to state action that presents an unsettled issue of state law, a federal constitutional issue, and a plaintiff who will be irreparably harmed if the state is not immediately enjoined. May the court abstain from a decision on the merits, remand the case to the state courts for resolution of the state law issue, and yet grant a preliminary injunction against the challenged state action? Does it follow from the paucity of reported opinions coupling such interim relief with abstention that such a procedure is inconsistent with the policies underlying the abstention …

Hawkins V. Town Of Shaw: The Court As City Manager, C. Ronald Ellington, Lawrence F. Jones

Scholarly Works

For over one hundred years Congress and the federal courts have pursued the goal of racial equality in the United States. In areas such as voting rights, public accommodations, and housing, Congress and the courts have interacted closely, with broad judicial interpretations upholding major remedial legislation. Moreover, when confronted by official state sources of racial discrimination, courts have traditionally responded to the clear command of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment without awaiting congressional action. Brown v. Board of Education stands as perhaps the best known instance in which a court has, on its own, ordered the elimination …

The Federal Anti-Injunction Statute In The Aftermath Of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, John Daniel Reaves, David S. Golden

Scholarly Works

Last Term the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. This case involved the present anti-injunction statute, section 2283 of Title 28, which forbids federal court injunction of state court proceedings. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the majority, traced the roots of the statute's predecessor into the "fundamental constitutional independence of the states and their courts." He hinted that the act grew out of concern for constitutional inviolability of a state court's adjudicative process. Mr. Justice Black went on to announce that the anti-injunction statute is absolute; no judicially created exceptions …