Civil Procedure Commons^™

Reconstituting A Constitution, And A Republic: The Architecture Of Authoritarian Rule, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

A constitution can be remade without tearing it down, or even changing a single word. It is done by law.

“The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish,” whose “province and duty” it is to “say what the law is.” U.S. Const. Art. III §1; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (Cranch) 137 (1803). It is not the power to remake the Constitution that grants it.

The Supreme Court is turning the inherited powers that hold power to law into instruments of its own aggrandizement. It is taking authority from …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Litigation, Reform, And The Opioid Crisis: From Mdl To Bankruptcy, Abbe R. Gluck

Touro Law Review

Can bankruptcy solve a public health crisis? Bankruptcy has taken center stage in complex civil litigation, and the massive opioid litigation is no exception. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2024 decided its first recent case about the intersection of bankruptcy and modern public harms litigation in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., a decision that brought to the fore pressing questions about the increasing use of bankruptcy in mass torts. In raising concerns about bankruptcy courts being used as a “roving commission to solve all such problems” in complex civil litigation,” the case potentially signals the Court’s growing discomfort with creative …

The Beleaguered Sovereign: Judicial Restraints On Public Enforcement, Luke P. Norris, Helen Hershkoff

Law Faculty Publications

Looking back at the federal courts over the last generation, commentators will likely focus on their role in undermining the functioning of the regulatory state. Well-acknowledged in this story are Supreme Court decisions that have constrained administrative agencies under the newly minted “major questions” doctrine, as well as the Court’s blockbuster decision overruling the longstanding Chevron doctrine. The Court also has made it increasingly difficult for individuals—often workers and consumers, people of color, women, and those who live from paycheck to paycheck—to seek federal judicial redress for regulatory violations as private enforcers. And the Court has questioned whether certain private …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Pro Se Litigants In The U.S. Supreme Court: How Do They Fare?, Kyle Persaud

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Maintaining Due Process By Extending Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. To Federal Class Actions, Felicia D. Sych

American University Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, subsequently altering the scope of personal jurisdiction and further narrowing its interpretation of specific jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. held that a state court can only assert specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant when there is a meaningful nexus between the forum state and the claims at issue. The Court purposefully refrained from deciding whether its holding applies to federal courts adjudicating federal class actions. After denying a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the issue in 2021, the question …

The Summary Judgment Revolution That Wasn't, Jonathan R. Nash, D. Daniel Sokol

Faculty Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment in 1986. Questions remain as to how much effect these cases have had on judicial decision-making in terms of wins and losses for plaintiffs. Shifts in wins, losses, and what cases get to decisions on the merits impact access to justice. We assemble novel datasets to examine this question empirically in three areas of law that are more likely to respond to shifts in the standard for summary judgment: antitrust, securities regulation, and civil rights. We find that the Supreme Court’s decisions had a statistically significant effect in …

Functional Federal Equity, Riley T. Keenan

Law Faculty Publications

Throughout history, English and American courts have adapted traditional equitable doctrines and remedies to new social, economic, and technological circumstances. This traditional approach to equity traces to England’s High Court of Chancery in the seventeenth century, and federal courts in the United States have applied it since the founding, fashioning new forms of equitable relief to break labor strikes, desegregate schools, redraw electoral maps, and prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

Yet despite its pedigree, the Supreme Court has abandoned this traditional approach to equity over the past two decades. Today, the Court limits federal courts to the doctrines and …

Litigating The Separation Of Powers, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

From Contacts To Relatedness: Invigorating The Promise Of "Fair Play And Substantial Justice" In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Personal jurisdiction is integral to access to justice. Without a convenient court, plaintiffs’ efforts to vindicate claims (and society’s interest in private enforcement of law) may be thwarted. After considerable engagement in between 1977 and 1990, the Supreme Court did not decide a personal jurisdiction case between 1990 and 2011. This Symposium addresses what the Court has done regarding personal jurisdiction in the “new era” that started in 2011. That year brought a specific jurisdiction decision, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, and a general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. The former broke no …

Doe V. Nestle, S.A.: Chocolate And The Prohibition On Child Slavery, Megan M. Coppa

Pace International Law Review

West Africa is presently home to approximately 1.5 million acres of cocoa farmland, which subsequently produces 70% of the world’s current chocolate supply. Côte d’Ivoire, also known as the Ivory Coast, is one of the largest cocoa producing countries within West Africa.

The increase of farmland and the need to control the deteriorating conditions have always created a demand for farm workers. Regrettably, more than 1.5 million cocoa farm workers in West Africa are currently children. These child workers are exposed to hazardous dust, flames, smoke, and chemicals, are required to utilize dangerous tools that they are not properly trained …

The Essentially-At-Home Requirement For General Jurisdiction: Some Embarrassing Cases, David Crump

Catholic University Law Review

In Daimler AG v. Baumann, the Supreme Court held that general jurisdiction does not exist unless the defendant is “essentially at home” in the forum. It offered two examples of places fitting this description but gave little further guidance or justification. A metaphor, such as essentially at home, is a bad way to express a legal standards, because the essence of a metaphor is that it substitutes one reality for another, creating a deliberate confusion. The Court also equated general jurisdiction with what it called all-purpose jurisdiction, which is wrong because it is easy to pose cases in which general …

Towards A New Role Of The Supreme Court As A Degree Of Litigation "The Supreme Court As Second Or Third Degree Of Litigation" "A Comparative Study" - Part (I), Prof. Mostafa El-Metwally Quandil

UAEU Law Journal

In principle, the Supreme Court must refer the reversed decision to the trial court for a new decision, because the role of the Supreme Court is to make a final determination on questions of law and not to hear a case. That being said, there is a recent tendency according to which the Supreme Court acts as a second or third degree court, competent to decide reviewed cases without referring to the trial court.

Towards A New Role Of The Supreme Court As A Degree Of Litigation "The Supreme Court As Second Or Third Degree Of Litigation" "A Comparative Study"- Part (Ii), Prof. Mostafa El-Metwally Quandil

UAEU Law Journal

In principle, the Court of Cassation refers the appealed judgment in which to transmit the merits of the case to the trial court (First Instance Court) to rule again, because its main role is to assess the legal provisions and not the subject of the disputes presented before it. However, this has been partially changed to the extent that it may be said that the Court of Cassation considered - in some cases and in some legislation – as second or third level of litigation; where - in this case - and then set aside the appealed judgment dismissal on …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

An Appellate Solution To Nationwide Injunctions, Sam Heavenrich

Indiana Law Journal

District courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions during the Obama and Trump administrations, provoking criticism from the Supreme Court. This Article proposes a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that addresses the Justices’ concerns without taking the drastic step of eliminating nationwide injunctions entirely. Specifically, this Article recommends amending Rule 65 to allow only the appellate courts to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the plaintiffs in cases challenging a federal law or policy. In addition to the proposed Rule change, this Article offers a categorization framework for existing proposals addressing nationwide injunctions, classifying them …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Hands-Off Religion In The Early Months Of Covid-19, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars have documented the United States Supreme Court’s “hands-off approach” to questions of religious practice and belief, pursuant to which the Court has repeatedly declared that judges are precluded from making decisions that require evaluating and determining the substance of religious doctrine. At the same time, many scholars have criticized this approach, for a variety of reasons. The early months of the COVID-19 outbreak brought these issues to the forefront, both directly, in disputes over limitations on religious gatherings due to the virus, and indirectly, as the Supreme Court decided important cases turning on religious doctrine. Taken together, …

Rethinking Standards Of Appellate Review, Adam Steinman

Indiana Law Journal

Every appellate decision typically begins with the standard of appellate review. The Supreme Court has shown considerable interest in selecting the standard of appellate review for particular issues, frequently granting certiorari in order to decide whether de novo or deferential review governs certain trial court rulings. This Article critiques the Court's framework for making this choice and questions the desirability of assigning distinct standards of appellate review on an issue-by-issue basis. Rather, the core functions of appellate courts are better served by a single template for review that dispenses with the recurring uncertainty over which standard governs which trial court …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Uncertain Path Of Class Action Law, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

For the past ten terms the Supreme Court has increased its focus on the law of class actions. In doing so, the Court has revised the law to better accord with a view of the class action as an exception to an idealized picture of litigation. This "exceptional" view of the class action has had a profound impact not only on class action law, but on procedural and substantive law in general. However, in the October 2015 term the Court decided three class action cases that support an alternative, 'functional" view of the class action, one that does not view …

#Sowhitemale: Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

NULR Online

116 out of 136. That is the number of white men who have served on the eighty-two-year-old committee responsible for creating and maintaining the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The tiny number of non-white, non-male committee members is disproportionate, even in the context of the white-male-dominated legal profession. If the rules were simply a technical set of instructions made by a neutral set of experts, then perhaps these numbers might not be as disturbing. But that is not the case. The Civil Rules embody normative judgments about the values that have primacy in our civil justice system, and the rule-makers—while …

Nonmajority Opinions And Biconditional Rules, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. For four decades, the clearest instruction from the Court has been the rule from Marks v. United States: the Court's holding is "the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." The Marks rule raises particular concerns, however, when it is applied to biconditional rules. Biconditionals are distinctive in that they set a standard that dictates both success and failure for a given issue. More formulaically, they combine an …