Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (8)
- Constitutional Law (5)
- Legislation (4)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
-
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law and Psychology (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Other Law (1)
- President/Executive Department (1)
- Science and Technology Law (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Confirm Judge Koh For The Ninth Circuit, Carl Tobias
Confirm Judge Koh For The Ninth Circuit, Carl Tobias
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
On February 25, 2016, President Barack Obama appointed United States District Court Judge Lucy Haeran Koh for a judicial emergency vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The jurist has served professionally for more than six years in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, ably resolving major litigation. Thus, White House efforts to confirm her were unsurprising. Nevertheless, 2016 is a presidential election year when delay infuses many court appointments. That conundrum was exacerbated because the United States Senate Republican majority refused to even consider United States Court of Appeals …
Honoring Dan Meltzer, Bradford R. Clark
Honoring Dan Meltzer, Bradford R. Clark
Notre Dame Law Review
Dan Meltzer was a giant in the field of Federal Courts, and it is hard to overstate his influence on its development. He taught Federal Courts at Harvard Law School and was a long-time co-author of Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System (“Hart & Wechsler ”), the casebook that created the field and shaped how generations of judges, lawyers, and scholars think about complex questions of federal jurisdiction. In addition, Dan enriched the field immeasurably by writing seminal articles on a wide range of Federal Courts topics. His work was characterized by deep knowledge of the …
Immigration Enforcement And State Post-Conviction Adjudications: Towards Nuanced Preemption And True Dialogical Federalism, Daniel Kanstroom
Immigration Enforcement And State Post-Conviction Adjudications: Towards Nuanced Preemption And True Dialogical Federalism, Daniel Kanstroom
University of Miami Law Review
The relationship between federal immigration enforcement and state criminal, post-conviction law exemplifies certain inevitable complexities of preemption and federalism. Because neither perfect uniformity nor complete preemption is possible, we must consider two questions: First, whether (and, if so, how) state courts adjudicating rights should account for legitimate federal immigration law goals, such as uniformity and finality? Second, how should federal courts deploy preemption and federalism principles when faced with challenges by federal authorities to such state court actions? This article offers a framework of “dialogical federalism,” seeking to normalize certain tensions under a rubric of dialogue, rather than formal hierarchy …
Psychological Harm And Constitutional Standing, Rachel Bayefsky
Psychological Harm And Constitutional Standing, Rachel Bayefsky
Brooklyn Law Review
When do psychological or emotional harms count as “injury-in-fact” for the purposes of satisfying Article III standing requirements, and when should they? Courts have wrestled with whether to grant standing, for example, to family members of a man killed by the police who argued that as relatives of the deceased, they had suffered emotional pain; members of an animal-welfare organization who claimed they had undergone “sleeplessness, depression, and anger” when they were unable to visit an elephant at the zoo; and members of a Catholic organization who challenged a city resolution criticizing the Catholic Church’s stance on adoption by same-sex …
Another Bite At The Apple For Trade Secret Protection: Why Stronger Federal Laws Are Needed To Protect A Corporation's Most Valuable Property, Alissa Cardillo
Another Bite At The Apple For Trade Secret Protection: Why Stronger Federal Laws Are Needed To Protect A Corporation's Most Valuable Property, Alissa Cardillo
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
Trade secrets are one of a corporation’s most valuable assets. However, they lack adequate protection under federal law, leaving them vulnerable to theft and misappropriation. As technology advances, it becomes easier and less time consuming for individuals and entities to access and steal trade secrets to a corporation’s detriment. Most often these thefts involve stealing trade secrets in an intangible form. Current legislation fails to adequately protect intangible trade secrets, leaving them vulnerable to theft. An amendment to the National Stolen Property Act that encompasses intangible trade secrets would close a loophole that currently exists relating to intangible assets, allowing …
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Commonality And The Constitution: A Framework For Federal And State Court Class Actions, Joseph A. Seiner
Indiana Law Journal
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that the allegations of pay discrimination in a case brought by over one million female employees lacked sufficient commonality to warrant class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Though the case was expressly decided under the Federal Rules, some well-known employer groups have begun to advance the argument that Wal-Mart was decided on constitutional grounds. These advocates maintain that the Supreme Court’s decision creates a commonality standard for all class-action plaintiffs—regardless of whether those litigants bring their claims in federal or state court. …
More Than Just A Potted Plant: A Court's Authority To Review Deferred Prosecution Agreements Under The Speedy Trial Act And Under Its Inherent Supervisory Power, Mary Miller
Michigan Law Review
In the last decade, the Department of Justice has increasingly relied on pretrial diversion agreements as a means of resolving corporate criminal cases short of prosecution. These pretrial diversion agreements—non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements—include substantive terms that a company must abide by for the duration of the agreement in order to avoid prosecution. When entering a deferred prosecution agreement, the Department of Justice files charges against the defendant corporation as well as an agreement outlining the variety of terms with which the company must comply. This delay in prosecution is permitted under the Speedy Trial Act, which provides an exception …
Why Enumeration Matters, Richard A. Primus
Why Enumeration Matters, Richard A. Primus
Michigan Law Review
The maxim that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers can be understood as a “continuity tender”: not a principle with practical consequences for governance, but a ritual statement with which practitioners identify themselves with a history from which they descend. This interpretation makes sense of the longstanding paradox whereby courts recite the enumeration principle but give it virtually no practical effect. On this understanding, the enumerated-powers maxim is analogous to the clause that Parliament still uses to open enacted statutes: “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty.” That text might imply that the Queen is …
Congress And The Reconstruction Of Foreign Affairs Federalism, Ryan Baasch, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
Congress And The Reconstruction Of Foreign Affairs Federalism, Ryan Baasch, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash
Michigan Law Review
Though the Constitution conspicuously bars some state involvement in foreign affairs, the states clearly retain some authority in foreign affairs. Correctly supposing that state participation may unnecessarily complicate or embarrass our nation’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court has embraced aggressive preemption doctrines that sporadically oust the states from discrete areas in foreign affairs. These doctrines are unprincipled, supply little guidance, and generate capricious results. Fortunately, there is a better way. While the Constitution permits the states a limited and continuing role, it never goes so far as guaranteeing them any foreign affairs authority. Furthermore, the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact …