Law Commons^™

To Democratize Algorithms, Ngozi Okidegbe

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdictions increasingly employ algorithms in public sector decisionmaking. Facing public outcry about the use of such technologies, jurisdictions have begun to increase democratic participation in the processes by which algorithms are procured, constructed, implemented, used, and overseen. But what problem is the current approach to democratization meant to solve? Policymakers have tended to view the problem as the absence of public deliberation: agencies and courts often use algorithms without public knowledge or input. To redress this problem, jurisdictions have turned to deliberative approaches designed to foster transparency and public debate.

This Article contends that the current approach to democratization is …

Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …

In Defense Of Territorial Jurisdiction, Cody Jacobs

Faculty Scholarship

As the story is traditionally told, the minimum contacts test introduced in International Shoe v Washington freed personal jurisdiction from the dark age of territorialism and gave courts the flexibility to expand the scope of personal jurisdiction to keep pace with modern society. While scholars have critiqued the minimum contacts test on a number of grounds, the narrative that the Territorial Model was inherently problematic—and that Shoe was a step in the right direction— has gone largely unchallenged.

This Article challenges that narrative and argues for a return to the Territorial Model. While Shoe is traditionally cast as a step …

Brief Amici Curiae On Behalf Of International And Constitutional Law Experts In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Al Bahlul V. United States , 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (En Banc), Robert D. Sloane, Foley Hoag Llp

Faculty Scholarship

Amici curiae, legal experts in international and constitutional law, believe that a majority of the en banc panel in Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc), mistakenly affirmed Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s conviction by a military commission for a non-international war crime. The main concurring opinion in that case misconceived how international law defines the jurisdiction of law-of-war military commissions. As amici argue below, it is the Constitution—not international law—that limits the jurisdiction of lawof-war military commissions.

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …

The Stream Of Violence: A New Approach To Domestic Violence Personal Jurisdiction, Cody Jacobs

Faculty Scholarship

There is a split among state courts about whether personal jurisdiction over an alleged domestic violence perpetrator is required in order to obtain a civil protection order preventing the defendant from contacting the victim. Some courts have held that such orders interfere with the defendant’s liberty interests, and therefore personal jurisdiction is a requirement under the Due Process Clause for the validity of such orders. Other courts have held that personal jurisdiction is not required because such protection orders are analogous to custody and divorce orders which have historically been entered by courts without establishing personal jurisdiction over the other …

Explaining Arbitration Law, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

Most fields of law provide guidance on how courts decide cases. In contrast, arbitration law tells judges when not to decide disputes, in deference to private decision-makers selected by the litigants.

At such moments, arbitration law normally includes two limbs: first, to hold parties to their bargains to arbitrate; second, to monitor the basic integrity of the arbitral process, so the case will be heard by a fair tribunal that listens before deciding, stays within its mission, and respects the limits of relevant public policy. As we shall see, in applying these principles, the devil lurks in the details of …

The New Habeas Corpus In Death Penalty Cases, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers the first systematic examination of Chapter 154, United States Code, which establishes new statutory arrangements for cases in which state prisoners under sentence of death file federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their convictions or sentences. Chapter 154 was enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Yet its provisions were made applicable only in capital cases arising from states that established qualifying schemes for providing indigent death row prisoners with counsel in state postconviction proceedings. No state’s system for supplying lawyers in state court won approval and, in consequence, Chapter 154’s rules …

Federal Banks And Federal Jurisdiction In The Progressive Era, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

This is a case study of the Supreme Court’s classic decision in Smith v. K.C. Title & Trust Co. A stockholder challenged the constitutionality of the Farm Loan Act of 1916, which authorized federal banks to issue tax-exempt bonds to raise funds for loans to farmers. The case is best known for its holding that a federal court could entertain the suit because it arose “under the Constitution” and for Justice Holmes’ argument, in dissent, that federal jurisdiction was not established because state law created the “cause of action.”

This study is the first to go beyond the jurisdictional issue …

No History, No Certainty, No Legitimacy . . . No Problem: Originalism And The Limits Of Legal Theory, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Martin H. Redish is on the warpath. Like General Sherman marching toward Atlanta (or Justin Tuck marching toward Tom Brady), Professor Redish, together with Matthew Arnould,1 lays waste to every constitutional theory that he encounters. Originalism, with its “belief that constitutional interpretation should be characterized exclusively by an effort to determine the Constitution’s meaning by means of some form of historical inquiry,”2 generates “an often contrived and opaque veil of historical inquiry”3 that provides “an ideal smokescreen behind which judges may pursue their personal[,] moral, political[,] or economic goals with relative impunity.”4 Nontextual theories, for their part, “permit[] selective …

The First Ever (Maybe) Original Jurisdiction Standings, Jay D. Wexler, David Hatton

Faculty Scholarship

One of the more interesting clauses of the Constitution is the one that gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought by one state against another state. These cases have historically made up a consistent, though small, part of the Supreme Court’s docket, but nobody has yet to investigate how the various states have fared in these suits. In this article, we analyze all of the state versus state cases decided over the past 112 years and provide the first ever (we think) official standings of how the states stack up. Minnesota is the big winner.

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jonathan Remy Nash's article, On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction, bravely tackles and creatively merges-the dual debates over rules versus standards and the ideal contours of federal jurisdiction.' He proposes a revised regime in which rules define jurisdictional boundaries at the front end, while standards "migrate" into a discretionary abstention phase at the back end.² This realignment, Nash argues, optimizes efficiency and predictability by placing a bright-line rule at the jurisdictional threshold, while promoting federalism by establishing a safety net that applies standards to claims that cross the threshold. ³ In this …

Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule^.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …

An Economic Perspective On Preemption, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay has two goals. The first is to present an economic theory of preemption as a choice among regulatory regimes. The optimal regime choice model is used to generate specific implications for the court decisions on preemption of products liability claims. The second objective is to extrapolate from the regime choice model to consider its implications for broader controversies about preemption.

Untangling The Twists Of Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Take it from me. The one job you don't want is sorting out federal habeas corpus. By all accounts, existing arrangements are an unrelieved disaster. Yet now come Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann with a valiant effort to set things in order. Their book describes habeas corpus as the writ currently stands, offers explanations of why and how we have come to this pass, and, most important, advances a definite plan of action for habeas in criminal cases-a way to fix what so desperately needs fixing. This is a good book, a valuable book. It is informative, essentially accurate in …

The Supreme Common Law Court Of The United States, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court's primary role in the history of the United States, especially in constitutional cases (and cases hovering in the universe of the Constitution), has been to limit Congress's ability to redefine and redistribute rights in a direction most people would characterize as liberal. In other words, the Supreme Court, for most of the history of the United States since the adoption of the Constitution, has been a conservative force against change and redistribution. The Court has used five distinct devices to advance its control over the law. First, it has construed rights-creating constitutional provisions narrowly when those …

Non-Signatories And The New York Convention, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

In the context of arbitrations subject to the New York Convention, the term ,non-signatory' might evoke several lines of inquiry. Must commitments to arbitrate be signed? What legal framework guides decision-making about who agreed to arbitrate? How should courts monitor an arbitrator's assertion of jurisdiction over someone who never signed an arbitration agreement?

The second of these matters - rules about who agreed to arbitrate - will retain our attention in this paper. While few commentators deny that arbitration rests on consent,¹ less unanimity exists about what exactly constitutes such consent when one side contests that it ever waived …

A Truism With Attitude: The Tenth Amendment In Constitutional Context, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The Tenth Amendment is caught in a crossfire hurricane. From one direction, it is dismissed as "but a truism"' with no significant constitutional function. From another direction, its unassuming language- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" 2-has inspired Byzantine doctrines concerning such matters as federal commandeering of state institutions,3 conditions on federal spending programs implemented by states,4 and federal regulation of state governmental institutions. 5 The Tenth Amendment thus appears to be either the constitutional equivalent of a …

The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, And The Hamdan Opinions: A Textualist Response To Justice Scalia, Gary S. Lawson, Steven Calabresi

Faculty Scholarship

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a five to three majority of the United States Supreme Court held unlawful the Bush Administration's use of military commissions to try alien combatant detainees held at the United States airbase in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The most basic issue in Hamdan was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion argued that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 stripped the Supreme Court and all other courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas cases such as Hamdan's.

Hamdan argued in the Supreme Court that to read the Detainee Treatment Act to …

Aedpa's 'Adjudication On The Merits' Requirement: Collateral Review, Federalism, And Comity, Robert D. Sloane

Faculty Scholarship

The modern law of federal habeas corpus is a labyrinth of counterfactuals and arcane procedural hurdles that few state petitioners manage to navigate-as Justice Blackmun once wrote less charitably in dissent, "a Byzantine morass of arbitrary, unnecessary, and unjustifiable impediments to the vindication of federal rights." The convoluted inquiries required arise from the need to reconcile three developments of the past four decades that remain in tension with one another: first, the Warren Court's expansion of federal habeas relief, identified with Fay v. Noia and its progeny; second, the Burger and Rehnquist Courts' curtailment of that expansion, identified with Wainwright …

Administrative-Law-Like Obligations On Private[Ized] Entities, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Privatization is often promoted as a cure for many of the problems of government. In this Article, Professor Beermann argues that the effect of privatization is likely to be muted by the fact that several related phenomena have, in recent years, reduced the differences between government and the private sector, especially when privatization is involved. First, private entities are often compelled to make public or provide to government a great deal of information about themselves, much as the Freedom of Information Act and related statutes require transparency in government. Second, discovery in litigation subjects a great deal of private information …

Why Courts Review Arbitral Awards, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial review of arbitral awards constitutes a form of risk management. In most countries courts may vacate decisions of perverse arbitrators who have ignored basic procedural fairness, as well as those of alleged arbitrators who have attempted to resolve matters never properly submitted to their jurisdiction. In some countries judges may also correct legal error or monitor an award's consistency with public policy.

Public scrutiny of arbitration is inevitable at the time of award recognition. Judges can hardly ignore the basic fairness of an arbitral proceeding when asked to give an award res judicata effect by seizing assets or staying …

Health Care, Technology And Federalism, Kevin Outterson

Faculty Scholarship

The regulation of health care has traditionally been the province of the states, most often grounded in the police power. In Colonial times, this division of responsibility was a rational response to the technological level of the eighteenth century, although even in the youth of the Republic some health and safety regulation required national and international action. With the growth of distancecompression technology, the increase in mobility of goods and services, and a significant federal financial role in health care, the grip of the police power on the regulation of health care has been weakened. Discussion of the police power …

Comments On Rooker-Feldman Or Let State Law Be Our Guide, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

I feel privileged to have been asked to be a commentator on the three principal papers in this symposium. These are three excellent papers, and although there has been some valuable commentary on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, there will be no need to go beyond these papers to gain a full appreciation of the doctrine, its applications, and its problems, which run as deep as the problems of any doctrine.

Text And Context In International Dispute Resolution, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

More than one thoughtful business manager has contemplated the prospect of litigation abroad in terms analogous to those used by the 19th century diarist quoted above. When an international venture goes awry, the dramatically disagreeable consequences can often include the "hometown justice" of the other side's national courts: unfamiliar procedures, perhaps a foreign language, and in some countries, a xenophobic or even corrupt judge.

The 'Proper' Scope Of Federal Power: A Jurisdictional Interpretation Of The Sweeping Clause, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

The year is 1790-shortly after ratification of the Federal Constitution. Imagine that the newly formed U.S. Congress, pursuant to its constitutionally enumerated power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads,"2 authorizes construction of a post road between Baltimore and Philadelphia.3 Suppose further that the most convenient route runs straight through, for example, Mrs. Barrington's cow pasture. Mrs. Barrington values her cows' serenity and strongly urges the government to build its road around her pasture. Congress nonetheless enacts a statute instructing the President and his subordinates to build the road across Mrs. Barrington's land. The enabling statute does not authorize compensation …

Vanessa Redgrave V. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.: A Breach Of Constitutional Dimension, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

In Vanessa Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 399 Mass. 93 (1987), the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued an important ruling on the parameters of the Commonwealth's relatively new Civil Rights Act (MCRA)' by answering two questions certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The SJC held that MCRA is essentially the state equivalent of 42 U.S.C. §1983 without the federal "state action" requirement.' This article briefly examines the SJC's decision in Redgrave in light of Massachusetts precedent and the vast federal experience with §1983 actions (Section I) and then considers the …

Fiscal Jurisdiction And Accrual Basis Taxation: Lifting The Corporate Veil To Tax Foreign Company Profits, William W. Park

Faculty Scholarship

"No rules of international law exist to limit the extent of any country's tax jurisdiction." Although not yet locus classicus, this assertion summarizes a view that finds favor among academic and practicing lawyers. Even if it is admitted that a relevant nexus must exist between the taxing sovereign and the person, property, or income to be taxed, the competing jurisdictional claims of other states are seldom viewed as imposing limits on national competence. This Article will examine the conflicts among rival assertions of fiscal jurisdiction that result from attempts of capital-exporting states to tax the undistributed income of foreign companies.

The Division Of Legal Labor In Rural Haiti, Pnina Lahav

Faculty Scholarship

This paper explores the institutional facilities available to Haitian peasants for the settlement of their disputes. More specifically, it compares the institution of the Chef de Section - the lowest administrative appointee in the Haitian countryside and the Justice of the Peace - the lowest ranking judicial institution provided by the Haitian legal system. The paper further advances the hypothesis that at the present time there is a shift in the division of labor between the two institutions, in favor of the Justice of the Peace, and that this shift may be attributed to processes of social differentiation currently detectable …