Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, litigants and lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether a federal court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims asserted by absent class members in a class action and, if so, what standard governs that jurisdictional determination. This issue is rapidly coming to a head and is poised for inevitable resolution by the Supreme Court in the near future; multiple circuit courts have heard appeals from district courts that have reached varying conclusions on …
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove
Government Standing And The Fallacy Of Institutional Injury, Tara Leigh Grove
Faculty Publications
A new brand of plaintiff has come to federal court. In cases involving the Affordable Care Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and partisan gerrymandering, government institutions have brought suit to redress “institutional injuries”—that is, claims of harm to their constitutional powers or duties. Jurists and scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about these lawsuits, arguing (for example) that the Senate should have standing to protect its power to ratify treaties; that the House of Representatives may sue to preserve its role in the appropriations process; and that the President may go to court to vindicate his Article II prerogatives. This Article …
One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …
What Kinds Of Statutory Restrictions Are Jurisdictional?, Scott Dodson
What Kinds Of Statutory Restrictions Are Jurisdictional?, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made.” In this case, a district court approved a class action settlement that purported to resolve both registered and unregistered copyright claims. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether that registration requirement is a limitation on federal court subject-matter jurisdiction.
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction In The Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger V. Fred Martin Motor Co., A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In Calder v. Jones, the Supreme Court clearly and succinctly determined that personal jurisdiction is appropriate over a defendant whose only contact with the forum state is its intentional actions aimed at and having harmful "effects" in the forum state. Illustrating the extent to which the law of personal jurisdiction had been relaxed from the time of Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, Calder also extended the reach of state courts by permitting jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants on the strength of the plaintiffs' connections with the forum state. Although Calder provided a welcome and much …