Law Commons^™

Gatekeeping & Class Certification: The Eleventh Circuit’S Stringent Approach To Admitting Expert Evidence In Support Of Class Certification, Pravin Patel, Mark Pinkert, Patrick Lyons

University of Miami Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is silent on whether evidence offered in support of a motion for class certification must be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, and there is currently no authoritative framework for incorporating all or some of the federal evidentiary rules into the class certification process. Resultantly, circuit courts are split on this question and have coalesced among several different approaches. The Eleventh Circuit follows a rigorous evidentiary standard in which evidence offered in support of class certification generally must be admissible under the Federal Rules of …

Slapp-Ed Around: Examining The Use Of State Anti-Slapp Laws In Federal Cases, Jacob Dryer

Senior Honors Theses

This thesis explains Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and examines the applicability of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal cases. Currently, the Federal Circuits are split on this issue, and the United States Supreme Court has not granted certiorari to any cases that have addressed this issue. This thesis reviews the jurisprudence related to the application of state anti-SLAPP laws in federal court. The author further examines what the Circuits have held about the applicability of anti-SLAPP laws and the rationales of each decision. Based on this information, this thesis argues that if the U.S. Supreme Court were to hear …

The Wild, Wild West Of Laboratory Developed Tests, John Gilmore

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Since the 1950’s, scientists have built novel technologies to screen for genetic diseases and other biological irregularities. Recently, researchers have developed a method called “liquid biopsy” (as opposed to a standard tissue biopsy) that uses a liquid sample (e.g., blood) to non‑invasively spot biomarkers indicating different types of cancers in the patient’s body. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has fully cleared a small number of liquid biopsy tests under its rigorous and expensive review process, most biotech companies have instead followed a less restrictive regulatory path through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which label …

Speech Without Speakers: Eliminating Artificial Barriers To Pleading Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Claims, Jennifer Ligansky

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

To successfully plead securities fraud claims under Rule 10b–5, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) requires that plaintiff-investors raise a “strong inference” that the defendant acted with scienter when issuing a false statement. But pleading scienter presents a challenging issue when the defendant is not a person, but an entity. When the defendant is a corporation, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches for determining whether the plaintiff has pleaded a strong inference of scienter. Some circuits hold that plaintiffs can raise a strong inference of corporate scienter only if the complaint identifies a speaker who knew …

The Lease Of All Evils: How A Middle-Ground Approach Can Resolve The Bankruptcy Code Conflict Between Section 363(F) Sales And Section 365(H) Lessee Protections, Kate Christensen

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in In re Royal St. Bistro, LLC has awakened an unsettled issue in the Bankruptcy Code that has divided the bankruptcy community for over two decades. The question examined by the Fifth Circuit was whether a non-debtor lessee with a right to continued possession through section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code loses this right if the debtor-lessor can sell its property “free and clear” under section 363(f). While early decisions held that section 365(h) always protects lessees against debtors’ free and clear sales, some subsequent decisions created a circuit split by ruling that section 365(h) …

Parting The Red Sea: Prescriptions For The Rluipa Equal Terms Provision's Expanding Circuit Split, Braden T. Meadows

Georgia Law Review

Congress unanimously passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. The Act marked the culmination of a decades-long dialogue between Congress and the Supreme Court. RLUIPA’s passage embodied Congress’s resolve to provide religious free exercise protections—particularly as it pertained to religious land use. Since 2000, however, RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision has been subject to differing judicial interpretations, resulting in an expanding circuit split. This Note analyzes the circuit split and offers guidance to future interpreters.

First, this Note examines the social, legislative, and judicial history leading to RLUIPA’s enactment. Second, it analyzes the contours of interpretations …

For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen

University of Miami Law Review

Freedom of speech is, unsurprisingly, foundational to the “land of the free.” However, the “land of the free” has undergone some changes since the First Amendment’s ratification. Unprecedented technological evolution has ushered in a digital forum in which the volume, speed, and reach of words transcend the Framers’ visions of the First Amendment’s aims. Social media platforms have become central spaces for public discourse, where opportunities to create—and repress—speech are endless. From enabling individuals to freely express their views, to allowing state actors to limit open exchanges, it is about time that the Supreme Court tackles this complex issue of …

A Call For Effective Leniency: How The Circuit Split Regarding The Prison Mailbox Rule Fails To Properly Alleviate Issues For Prisoners, Shelby E. Parks

Mississippi College Law Review

The prison population has long been an overlooked segment of society. This is particularly true when it comes to pro se litigants within the federal prison system. A pro so litigant is someone involved in litigation, whether civil or criminal, and is representing themselves instead of being represented by an attorney. In other words, pro se prisoners do not have the aid of counsel at their disposal. Although it is an individual’s constitutional right to represent themselves, it can come at a cost, especially when it comes to understanding the nuances of civil or criminal court procedure. For pro se …

Preliminary Injunctions In Public Law: The Merits, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The law of preliminary injunctions has been evolving, in many instances away from its roots in equity and towards a more rigid and formalistic approach that raises the bar for when a preliminary injunction may be granted. This change has its roots in hostility at the Supreme Court to certain types of rights, such as abortion, voting rights, public health, and environmental protection, to name a few. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a few circuits have adopted a strict, literal reading of some dicta from that case in order …

Abrogating Tribal Sovereign Immunity Via The Bankruptcy Code, Amanda Hager Freudensprung

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disability Law—From Stair Flights To Websites: An Argument For Amending The Americans With Disabilities Act To Include Title Vi That Applies To Online Spaces, Amelia Hansel

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Did The Supreme Court In Transunion V. Ramirez Transform The Article Iii Standing Injury In Fact Test?: The Circuit Split Over Ada Tester Standing And Broader Theoretical Considerations, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and especially the Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for limiting Congress’ authority to confer standing by statute. For example, in his article, Injury in Fact Transformed, Professor Cass Sunstein argues that TransUnion is a “radical ruling” that uses the injury in fact standing requirement to limit the authority of Congress to enact only statutes that address harms that have a close relationship to traditional or common law harms. By contrast, Professor Ernst Young argues that the Supreme Court’s injury in fact doctrine is …

The Connick/Garcetti Split: Is Public Employee Association A Matter Of Public Concern?, Austin J. Wishart

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich

Pepperdine Law Review

The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …

Criminal Law—The Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Examining The Physical Restraint Sentencing Enhancement, Drew Curtis

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ai Derivatives: The Application To The Derivative Work Right To Literary And Artistic Productions Of Ai Machines, Daniel J. Gervais

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article predicts that there will be attempts to use courts to try to broaden the derivative work right in litigation either to prevent the use of, or claim protection for, literary and artistic productions made by Artificial Intelligence (AI) machines. This Article considers the normative valence of, and the (significant) doctrinal pitfalls associated with, such attempts. It also considers a possible legislative alternative, namely attempts to introduce a new sui generis right in AI productions. Finally, this Article explains how, whether such attempts succeed or not, the debate on rights (if any) in productions made by AI machines is …

Jack Daniel’S Highlights The Second And Ninth Circuit’S Divide On The Application Of The Rogers Test, Hannah Knab

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Senseless Sentencing: The Uneven Application Of The Career Offender Guidelines, Christopher Ethan Watts

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Federal appellate courts are currently split on the definition of “controlled substance” in the career offender guideline, with one side using federal law to define the phrase, and the other side allowing standalone state law offenses to trigger the guideline. Allowing state law to define the phrase allows countless substances Congress never intended to penalize to be able to trigger one of the most severe penalties in the Sentencing Guidelines. This Note assesses the landscape of the circuit split and analyzes the arguments for and against federally defining “controlled substance offense.” This Note then proposes a novel way to resolve …

Arming Goliath: Independent Craft Beer Is In Jeopardy At The Intersection Of A First Amendment Circuit Split, The Twenty-First Amendment, And The Erosion Of Tied-House Laws, Daniel J. Croxall

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cruel And Unusual: Closing The Door On Juvenile De Facto Life Sentences, Thomas Garrity

Catholic University Law Review

There currently exists a split amongst the Federal Circuit Courts that stands ripe for review. The Supreme Court laid down clear precedent in its landmark decisions of Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama that capital punishment and life without parole are cruel and unusual as applied to juvenile non-homicidal offenders categorically and as applied to juvenile homicidal offenders without consideration of youth as a mitigating factor. There, however, was a door left open by these cases that allowed for judges to side-step the Court’s mandate. Using excessively long term-of-years sentences—longer than the most hopeful of estimates …

Does Due Process Have An Age Limit? Why The Law Concerning The Parental Right To Freedom Of Intimate Association In The Relationship With An Adult Child Is A Mischaracterization Of A Circuit Split, Bryan Schenkman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Circuit Split Deepened By Second Circuit's 'Functional' Test Application In Recent Section 1782 Ruling, Peter B. Rutledge, Emina Sadic Herzberger

Popular Media

Federal law authorizes district courts to order discovery for use in a proceeding before a "foreign or international tribunal." While that law, 28 U.S.C. § 1782, permits interested persons to request such discovery, neither the statutory language nor Supreme Court jurisprudence definitively resolves whether private arbitral tribunals fall within its scope. Unsurprisingly, the lack of clear guidance on this matter has triggered a circuit split, with the Second and Fifth Circuits generally declining to extend § 1782 to private arbitral tribunals while the Fourth and Sixth Circuits broadly interpret the statutory language to apply § 1782 to private arbitral tribunals. …

In Re Government Attorney-Client Privilege: A Categorical Rule To Settle The Issue, Luke Charette

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

This Note explores the reasoning and factors used by each of the federal circuits in deciding whether or not to uphold attorney-client privilege between the government and the lawyers representing it. After considering those factors, this Note argues that there should be a categorical rule that neither a state nor the federal government may invoke the attorney-client privilege in response to a criminal grand jury subpoena. To justify this conclusion, this Note outlines how current government attorney-client privilege case law, as well as the policy underpinnings of the privilege itself, dictate that a categorical rule is appropriate.

Suspended For Sexual Misconduct, Now What?--The Sixth Circuit Splits From The Second On A Pleading Standard For Reverse Title Ix Actions, Thomas Campbell

SMU Law Review Forum

No abstract provided.

How Circuits Can Fix Their Splits, Wyatt G. Sassman

Marquette Law Review

The desire to avoid conflicts between the regional circuits of the federal courts of appeals, commonly known as “circuit splits,” has had an immense influence on the structure and operation of the federal appellate courts for roughly a century. Over time, the Supreme Court has been assigned responsibility for resolving these conflicts. Yet as overall federal caseloads have increased, this reliance on the Supreme Court has imposed serious and well-recognized burdens on the operation of the federal courts. For decades scholars have debated bold proposals to address these problems, such as creating a new national court dedicated to resolving conflicts …

Leidos And The Roberts Court's Improvident Securities Law Docket, Matthew C. Turk, Karen E. Woody

Karen Woody

For its October 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a noteworthy securities law case, Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System. The legal question presented in Leidos was whether a failure to comply with a regulation issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Item 303 of Regulation S-K (Item 303), can be grounds for a securities fraud claim pursuant to Rule 10b-5 and the related Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Leidos teed up a significant set of issues because Item 303 concerns one of the more controversial corporate disclosures mandated by the SEC—an …

Circuit Split On The Application Of The "Safety Valve" Provision As Applied To The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act - Alexander And Mosquera-Murillo, Alexander D. Andruzzi

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

When the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided the case of United States v. Mosquera-Murillo, it created a circuit-split on whether individuals charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (codified as 46 U.S.C. § 705) are entitled to relief under the "Safety Valve" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The "Safety Valve" allows individuals who meet certain criteria to be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines, regardless of any mandatory minimum sentences. This case note compares the holding of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to the Eleventh Circuit's holding in United States …

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

Following The Fifth Circuit: Title Vii As The Sole Remedy For Employment Discrimination On The Basis Of Sex In Educational Institutions Receiving Federal Funds, Alicia Martinez

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Legislator-Led Prayer: A Harmless Historical Tradition Or An Unconstitutional Establishment Of Religion?, Krista Ellis

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.