Law Commons^™

Fletcherian Standing, Merits, And Spokeo V. Robins, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This essay offers an exercise in wishful jurisdictional and procedural thinking. As part of a Supreme Court Roundtable on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it argues for William Fletcher's conception of standing as an inquiry into the substantive merits of a claim and of whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. This approach is especially necessary in statutory cases; along with its constitutional power to create new rights, duties, and remedies, Congress should have a free hand in deciding who and how those rights and duties should be enforced. Spokeo, which involves a claim for damages for publication of …

The Process Of Marriage Equality, Josh Blackman, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Criminal Justice In Indian Country, M. Alexander Pearl

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the role played by different enacted legislation on California’s Indian tribes criminal justice system. For centuries, tribal governments were the only entities with criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. In 1883, the Supreme Court in Ex parte Kan-Gi-Shun-Ka (Ex parte Crow Dog) confirmed that a crime committed by an Indian against another Indian did not give rise to federal jurisdiction. In response, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, granting federal authorities the power to investigate, enforce, and prosecute certain crimes occurring in Indian Country. The federal statutes creating federal jurisdiction did not preclude tribal jurisdiction, but states …

Bargaining Practices: Negotiating The Kampala Compromise For The International Criminal Court, Noah Weisbord

Faculty Publications

At the International Criminal Court's (ICC) Review Conference in 2010, the ICC's Assembly of States Parties (ASP) agreed upon a definition of the crime of aggression, jurisdictional conditions, and a mechanism for its entry into force (the "Kampala Compromise"). These amendments give the ICC jurisdiction to prosecute political and military leaders of states for planning, preparing, initiating, or executing illegal wars, beginning as early as January 2017.

This article explains the bargaining practices of the diplomats that gave rise to this historic development in international law. This article argues that the international-practices framework, as currently conceived, does not adequately capture …

Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, And The Ministerial Exemption, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Reason Behind The Rules: From Description To Normativity In International Criminal Procedure, Noah Weisbord

Faculty Publications

As the International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to mature in its practices, it provokes discussion on whether the comfortable framework of adversarial and inquisitorial systems should be used to evaluate an institution that exists in a fundamentally different context from that of national criminal justice systems. In order to avoid entangling the ICC in rules that are not tailored to fit its specific goals and institutional context, the normative purposes underlying procedural rules derived from domestic institutions should be reexamined.

This article draws out basic principles that may be of use in reexamining the reasoning behind the rules of procedure …

Prosecuting Aggression, Noah Weisbord

Faculty Publications

The Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court will soon have its first opportunity to revise the Rome Statute and activate the latent crime of aggression, which awaits a definition of its elements and conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction. The working group charged with drafting a provision is scheduled to complete its task by 2008 or 2009, one year before the International Criminal Court’s first review conference.

Beginning with a history of the crime meant to put the current negotiations in the context of past initiatives, this article sets out the status of the negotiations and begins …

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Procedure: Thoughts On A Trichotomy, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction, Merits, And Substantiality, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction And Merits, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

Federal courts frequently err by treating factual elements of substantive federal causes of action as going to the jurisdiction of the federal court. This arises most frequently as to elements in three federal causes of action: the quantum-of-employees element in employment discrimination claims, the "affecting commerce" element under the Sherman Act, and the state action requirement in constitutional actions. Courts treat the failure of one of these elements as a basis for dismissing an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than for failure to state a claim on the merits. The error in this characterization affects the time and …

The Eleventh Circuit’S First Decade Contribution To The Law Of The Nation, 1981-1991, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

Likewise, the task of commentary is difficult. The period covered here-the first decade of the Eleventh Circuit-represents, quite literally and figuratively, the formative era of the court. Indeed, the volume of decisions and their variety are qualities that ought to humble, if not intimidate, most commentators. Justice Holmes once observed that a common law court could be expected to replicate the entire corpus juris in the space of a single generation. The Eleventh Circuit did this consciously between 1981 and 1991. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, the inaugural en banc court held that the new court-just cleaved from the …

Toward A Unified Theory Of The Jurisdiction Of The United States Courts Of Appeals, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Thinking About Federal Jurisdiction — Of Serpents And Swallows, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

In this essay, Professor Baker assumes that the decision to get into or stay in federal court has been made, for whatever reason. His concentration is focused on providing a checklist of some of the typical challenges to jurisdiction and to highlight some uncommon responses. Organizationally, he first considers general issues which apply to all cases, and then considers separately some issues in diversity cases and in federal question cases.

The Ambiguous Independent And Adequate State Ground In Criminal Cases: Federalism Along A Mobius Strip, Thomas E. Baker

Faculty Publications

In topology a Mobius strip is a one-sided surface formed by holding one end of a rectangle fixed, rotating the opposite end 180 degrees, and joining the two ends.'In Supreme Court jurisdiction the independent and adequate state ground doctrine forms a similar figure by joining, on one side, the power of the Court to revise the judgments of state courts on issues of federal law with, on the other side, the Court's lack of any general power to re examine issues of state law.