Law Commons^™

Rethinking The Supreme Court's Interstate Waters Jurisprudence, Jamison Colburn

Journal Articles

For more than a century the Supreme Court has heard a steady stream of original jurisdiction controversies “between two or more States” over interstate waters. It has for even longer heard and decided similar cases involving non-state parties from its appellate dockets. Until now, no synthesis has combined these traditions to describe and explain states’ legal interests in interstate waters as an amalgam of federal common law, Article III’s judicial federalism, and the separation of powers. This article disentangles legacy opinions, orders, and jurisdictional traditions, revealing the bundle of interests that all courts are obliged to protect. It finally offers …

The Handmaid Of Justice: Power And Procedure In The Inferior Courts, Kellen R. Funk

Faculty Scholarship

Summing up the history of procedure from the codification movement of the nineteenth century to the Federal Rules practice of today, Robert Bone observed, “Each generation of procedure reformers, it seems, diagnoses the malady and proposes a cure only to have the succeeding generation’s diagnosis treat the cure as a cause of the malady.” While playfully highlighting the contingencies and unexpected consequences of procedural history, Professor Bone was not advocating a cyclical view of history, in which “cost and delay” continually recur as the bugaboos of procedural reformers who can’t quite figure out how to solve the problem. Instead, Bone …

The Erie/Sears/Compco Squeeze: Erie’S Effects On Unfair Competition And Trade Secret Law, Sharon Sandeen

Faculty Scholarship

On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Supreme Court's famous decision in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, this article explores the consequences of that decision on the development of unfair competition law in the United States. It details efforts by lawyers and legislators to grapple with those consequences and provides an overview of the evolution of unfair competition law in the U.S. since Erie, with a particular focus on trade secret law.

The Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction And The Latent Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Question Jurisdiction, Sam F. Halabi

Faculty Publications

This article explores the discrepancy in the law of federal jurisdiction as it has developed under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. In contrast to return claims where the remedy is discrete, finite, and closely tied to fundamental international obligations under the treaty, orders to enforce access rights are, or would be, amorphous, ongoing, and subject to other administrative structures codified in the convention as well as, in the U.S. system, adding responsibilities for federal judges more generally associated with those undertaken by state judges. Even in the one federal appellate decision that explicitly acknowledged a judicially enforceable right to ensure …

A First Look At The Proposed 'Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act Of 2015', Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

Almost half a century ago, the American Law Institute observed, “The most marked abuse has been joinder of a party of the same citizenship as plaintiff in order to defeat removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Such tactics have led to much litigation, largely futile, on the question of fraudulent joinder.” Over the last half century, the volume of litigation on this question has only increased. In response, Congress is now actively considering legislation to address the problem of fraudulent joinder.

The bill is H.R. 3624, the “Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015” (FJPA). The FJPA seeks to prevent …

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 …

A Constitutional Theory Of Habeas Power, Lee B. Kovarsky

Faculty Scholarship

Modern habeas corpus law generally favors an idiom of individual rights, but the Great Writ’s central feature is judicial power. Throughout the seventeenth-century English Civil Wars, the Glorious Revolution, and the war in the American colonies, the habeas writ was a means by which judges consolidated authority over the question of what counted as 'lawful' custody. Of course, the American Framers did not simply copy the English writ—they embedded it in a Constitutional system of separated powers and dual sovereignty. 'A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power' is an inquiry into the newly minted principle that the federal Constitution guarantees some …

How Congress Could Defend Doma In Court (And Why The Blag Cannot), Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

In one of the most closely watched litigation matters in recent years, the Supreme Court will soon consider Edith Windsor's challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Court surprised many observers by granting certiorari, not only on the merits of Windsor's equal protection and due process claims, but also on the question whether the defendants — the United States and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (the BLAG) — have Article III standing to defend DOMA. The United States has agreed with plaintiffs that DOMA is unconstitutional, prompting the BLAG to intervene for the …

Original Habeas Redux, Lee B. Kovarsky

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores what is perhaps the Supreme Court’s most exotic appellate power— its authority to issue (inaptly-named) “original” writs of habeas corpus. Although I have been working on Original Habeas Redux for some time, the Troy Davis case has recently thrust this topic into the national spotlight. In Davis (2009), the Supreme Court exercised, for the first time in over forty years, its power to transfer an original habeas petition to a district court for merits adjudication. Having collected and tabulated two decades of new data, I argue that Davis is not a blip in an otherwise constant state …

Business Interest Cases – October 2009 Term, Leon D. Lazer, Leon Friedman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Death Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky

Faculty Scholarship

I examine the interaction between what I call 'death ineligibility' challenges and the habeas writ. A death ineligibility claim alleges that a criminally-confined capital prisoner belongs to a category of offenders for which the Eighth Amendment forbids execution. By contrast, a 'crime innocence' claim alleges that, colloquially speaking, a capital prisoner 'wasn’t there, and didn’t do it.' In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has identified several new ineligibility categories, including mentally retarded offenders. Configured primarily to address crime innocence and procedural challenges, however, modern habeas law is poorly equipped to accommodate ineligibility claims. Death Ineligibility traces the genesis …

Is The Family A Federal Question?, Meredith Johnson Harbach

Law Faculty Publications

There has long been conflict over the relationship between the states and the federal system vis-i-vis the family. The traditional account of domestic relations describes family law as the exclusive domain of the states, and federal courts have credited this account in the "domestic relations exception." Although scholars have analyzed and critiqued the exception's applicability to diversity jurisdiction, the intersection of federal question jurisdiction and this exception remains largely unexplored. This Article describes and critiques, on both instrumental and deeper normative terms, federal courts' willingness to expand the "domestic relations exception" to include federal question cases. The Article proceeds in …

Agenda: The Future Of Federal Wetlands Regulation After Rapanos, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

The Future of Federal Wetlands Regulation After Rapanos (May 10)

Hot-Topic Discussion held at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck in Denver, Colorado on May 10, 2007 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.

Speaker: Mark Squillace, Director of the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law.

Commentators: Wayne Forman and Michelle Kales, attorneys, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

"Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court …

Slides: The Future Of Federal Wetlands Regulation, Mark Squillace

The Future of Federal Wetlands Regulation After Rapanos (May 10)

Presenter: Professor Mark Squillace, Director, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law

35 slides

Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas petitions brought by detainees held as part of the “war on terrorism” has been a popular topic for courts and commentators alike. Little attention has been paid, however, to whether the Constitution itself interposes any jurisdictional limits over such petitions. In a series of recent cases, the US government has invoked the Supreme Court’s obscure (and obtuse) 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur (338 US 197) for the proposition that Article III forecloses jurisdiction over any petition brought by a detainee in foreign or international custody, including that of the “Multinational …

The Origins Of Article Iii "Arising Under" Jurisdiction, Anthony J. Bellia

Journal Articles

Article III of the Constitution provides that the judicial Power of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What the phrase arising under imports in Article III has long confounded courts and scholars. This Article examines the historical origins of Article III arising under jurisdiction. First, it describes English legal principles that governed the jurisdiction of courts of general and limited jurisdiction--principles that animated early American jurisprudence regarding the scope of arising under jurisdiction. Second, it explains how participants in the framing and ratification of the Constitution understood arising …

Reshaping Federal Jurisdiction: Congress's Latest Challenge To Judicial Review, Helen Norton

Publications

This Article examines growing congressional interest in a specific legislative check on judicial power: controlling the types of cases judges are empowered to decide by expanding and/or contracting federal subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has recently sought to shape judicial power through a range of proposals that variously enlarge and compress federal subject matter jurisdiction. In 2004, for example, the House of Representatives voted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of the Allegiance. Just a few months later, the new 109th Congress undertook a groundbreaking expansion of federal subject …

The Station Nightclub Fire And Federal Jurisdictional Reach: The Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act Of 2002, Peter Adomeit

Faculty Scholarship

The Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 2002 has great potential for expediting The Station fire cases. The object of the Act is to place all of the cases from a mass disaster before a single judge, who can supervise discovery, then try the issue of liability, and either try or remand the issue of damages. How this new procedural tool will function is uncertain. The Act consolidates the power in one court to either urge the parties to accept a global settlement, or send the unresolved cases to trial. There are many unanswered questions. It is up to judges …

Recent Developments In Federal Jurisdiction And Pleading, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

Recent developments in federal jurisdiction and pleading including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and notice, venue, forum non conveniens, forum selection clauses, and pleading.

Indian Tribes, Civil Rights, And Federal Courts, Robert D. Probasco

Faculty Scholarship

A citizen’s civil rights include protections against certain actions by three different governments – federal, state, and tribal. If the federal or a state government violates your civil rights, you can seek a remedy in federal court, including injunctive or declaratory judgment and damages. But the Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez that that – other than habeas corpus relief – you cannot challenge a civil rights violation by an Indian tribe in federal court. The decision has resulted in a significant amount of controversy and proposals that Congress explicitly grant such jurisdiction. This article reviews the …

Fighting The Probate Mafia: A Dissection Of The Probate Exception To Federal Court Jurisdiction, Peter Nicolas

Articles

Despite the complexity and confusion surrounding the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction-or perhaps because of it-it has been given scant attention in the literature. This Article seeks to fill the gap. Part II of this Article sets forth the current application of the probate exception in the lower federal courts. Part III of this Article examines the statutory and constitutional constraints on the federal courts' exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over probate and probate related matters. Part III concludes that the probate exception is a mere gloss on the statutory grants of subject matter jurisdiction to the federal courts …

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

Congressional Control Over Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Defense Of The Traditional View, Julian Velasco

Journal Articles

The extent of Congress's authority to control the jurisdiction of the federal courts has been the subject of unending academic debate. The orthodox view long has been that Congress possesses nearly plenary authority to restrict federal court jurisdiction. There has been no shortage, however, of commentators who have taken exception to that view. The heart of the debate lies in whether Congress is authorized to remove specific subjects from the jurisdiction of federal courts when motivated by hostility to their substantive decisions. According to the traditional view, Congress is free to use its power in this manner. While most traditionalists …

Apocalypse Next Time?: The Anachronistic Attack On Habeas Corpus/Direct Review Parity, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Today, a district court's habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of a state criminal conviction and the Supreme Court's direct review of the same question are nearly identical. Last Term, in Wright v. West, an otherwise mundane criminal procedure case, the Supreme Court rewrote the question presented to ask whether the parity between federal habeas corpus and direct appellate review should be destroyed. The Court proposed abandoning in habeas corpus an important trait shared by the two modes of review – de novo consideration of legal and mixed legal-factual questions.

To those who value meaningful habeas corpus review, the …

Pragmatism Without Politics -- A Half Measure Of Authority For Jurisdictional Common Law, Gene R. Shreve

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Federal Enclaves And Local Law: Carving Out A Domestic Violence Exception To Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction, Michael J. Malinowski

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Shedding New Light On An Old Debate: A Federal Indian Law Perspective On Congressional Authority To Limit Federal Question Jurisdiction, Kevin J. Worthen

Faculty Scholarship

Examining the ongoing debate concerning congressional power to eliminate federal court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law from thefederal Indian law viewpoint allows consideration of the issues in a concrete setting. Experience under the Indian Civil Rights Act during the last twenty years indicates that some federal review of actions arising under federal law is needed if the command of the supremacy clause is to be fully effectuated. At the same time, it indicates that a uniform interpretation of that federal law is not essential to the enforcement of the clause. This examination thus provides support for the distributive …

Federal Jurisdiction, Ronald J. Mann

Faculty Scholarship

One important task of the federal judiciary is to resolve cases presenting tensions between national and state governments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit justly is renowned for its work in this area. One major, if not sensational, arena in which these tensions surface is in cases presenting issues of federal jurisdiction, pursuant to which federal courts allocate power between the national and state judicial systems.

During the survey period the Fifth Circuit published almost one hundred opinions dealing with substantive issues of federal jurisdiction. Like others before me, I have not undertaken in this essay …

Caseload Conundrum, Constitutional Restraint And The Manipulation Of Jurisdiction, Nancy Levit

Faculty Works

The quantity of litigation in the federal courts has reached unprecedented heights. While this 'crisis of volume' has attracted the attention of legislators and scholars, the judiciary has been left to divine self-help measures to reduce litigants' use of the federal courts. The federal bench that must manage this caseload explosion includes a cadre of recently appointed federal judges. Many of these judges embrace the New Federalism, an initiative to shift governmental power and responsibility back to the states.

This article posits that the combination of judicial overload and injudicious federalism is operating to shunt certain classes of litigants away …