Conflict of Laws Commons^™

Divided Loyalties: The Problem Of “Dual Sovereignty” And Constitutional Faith, Sanford Levinson

Touro Law Review

Sanford Levinson provides the inaugural lecture of the new Jewish Law Institute at Touro Law School. He focuses on some of the ways that he finds himself constantly thinking of what might be termed "meta-issues" that arise in his joint study of, and intellectual confrontation with, Jewish law and American constitutional law.

Fifth Amendment Protection For Public Employees: Garrity And Limited Constitutional Protections From Use Of Employer Coerced Statements In Internal Investigations And Practical Considerations, J. Michael Mcguinness

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction And Choice Of Law, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's recent personal jurisdiction decisions for failing to provide a clear doctrinal framework, arguing that the Court has oscillated between prioritizing state sovereignty and individual liberty without adequately balancing these interests. The author contends that personal jurisdiction doctrine must evolve to address the complexities of modern, interconnected commerce while protecting both state regulatory power and defendants' reliance interests. The analysis emphasizes the need for a coherent approach that integrates fairness, foreseeability, and sovereign authority in jurisdictional determinations.

Intramilitary Tort Immunity: A Constitutional Justification , Kevin M. Fillo

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Municipal And State Sanctuary Declarations: Innocuous Symbolism Or Improper Dictates?, Jorge L. Carro

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Reporter's Privilege In Florida: Has The Conflict Between The First Amendment And Sixth Amendment Been Reconciled?, Jay B. Rosman

Barry Law Review

This article examines the reporter's privilege in Florida and the inherent conflict between the First Amendment and Sixth Amendment as it exists between the freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The salient question addressed is whether the conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment has been reconciled on the issue of a reporter's privilege by Florida courts and the Florida Legislature. The author provides both an analytic and empirical study. Analytically, the article looks to the two amendments to define a reporter's privilege and considers the history of the privilege. The article discusses …

Reconciling Positivism And Realism: Kelsen And Habermas On Democracy And Human Rights, David Ingram

Philosophy: Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is well known that Hans Kelsen and Jürgen Habermas invoke realist arguments drawn from social science in defending an international, democratic human rights regime against Carl Schmitt’s attack on the rule of law. However, despite embracing the realist spirit of Kelsen’s legal positivism, Habermas criticizes Kelsen for neglecting to connect the rule of law with a concept of procedural justice (Part I). I argue, to the contrary (Part II), that Kelsen does connect these terms, albeit in a manner that may be best described as functional, rather than conceptual. Indeed, whereas Habermas tends to emphasize a conceptual connection between …

Defamation And False Rape Claims: Policies, Attitudes, And Suggested Reform In The United States And The United Kingdom, Claire Steinman

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note examines the legal and societal implications of defamation cases arising from false rape claims in the United States and the United Kingdom. It argues that while U.S. defamation law provides stricter standards for liability, the U.K.'s approach to punishment is more effective in deterring false claims. The optimal solution, the note suggests, is to combine the U.S. legal framework for determining liability with the U.K.'s harsher penalties to protect both the falsely accused and genuine victims.

The Problem Of Democracy In Contexts Of Polarization, Imer Flores

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this paper I argue that contemporary democracies all over the world are more polarized than ever and intend to analyze not only the conditions of possibility of a democracy, in general, and in contexts of polarization, in particular, but also the relationship between democracy and polarization. My claim is that polarization, if certain conditions are met, more than a problem it is a great opportunity to democracy and a greater democratization. Hence, I bring to mind that it was Ronald Dworkin, who recently asked about the conditions of possibility of a democracy and its relationship with polarization by developing …

Federal Governmental Power: Preemption From The October 2008 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

In a stunning trifecta, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of consumers and held that federal law did not preempt state consumer claims. The three cases concerned patients injured by drugs, smokers misled by false advertising, and borrowers victimized by predatory lending practices. These cases represent the latest battle in the ongoing war between consumer advocates and business entities over whether federal laws should be interpreted to erect barriers against state consumer protection laws.

Wyeth v. Levine raised the issue of whether approval of a drug by the F.D.A. preempts a state tort claim based on failure to warn. Altria …

The Absentee Post-Conviction Constitutional Safeguards – People V. Zowaski, Danielle M. Hansen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.

Oklahoma's Save Our State Amendment And The Conflict Of Laws, John T. Parry

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

When A Door Closes, A Window Opens: Using Preemption To Challenge State Medicaid Cutbacks, Martina Brendel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Following the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, several circuit courts of appeal have disallowed enforcement of key Medicaid provisions under § 1983. Notably, courts have placed no similar restrictions on the enforceability of these provisions under the Supremacy Clause. This article discusses Lankford v. Sherman and Independent Living Center v. Shewry, two recent appellate decisions in which plaintiffs succeeded in preventing Medicaid cuts under a preemption theory. It then addresses the limits of the Supremacy Clause, which applies to a narrower range of state action than § 1983. It argues that Medicaid reimbursement rates are "laws" …

Partisan Conflicts Over Presidential Authority, Jide Okechuku Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

A prevailing view in the legal and political science literature assumes that power holders seek to expand or contract their constitutional authority based on incentives that are intrinsic to the logic of the institutional offices they occupy. For instance, it is generally assumed that Presidents are empire builders who will almost always prefer maximum flexibility in shaping their policy objectives, whereas members of Congress may sometimes shirk their institutional prerogatives because of electoral incentives or collective action problems. A similar institutional logic underpins the view that federal courts will often seek to expand their interpretive authority in constitutional controversies at …

Withdrawing From International Custom: Terrible Food, Small Portions, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Curtis A. Bradley and Mitu Gulati’s Withdrawing from International Custom brings to mind the old joke recounted by Woody Allen in Annie Hall: “Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, ‘Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.’ The other one says, ‘Yeah, I know; and such small portions.’” Similarly, while Bradley and Gulati attack international law’s current prohibition of unilateral withdrawal from custom, they propose an alternative that differs only modestly from it (small portions). At the same time, the doctrinal change they propose would take customary international law in the …

Filling The Criminal Liability Gap For Private Military Contractors Abroad: U.S. V. Slough And The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Of 2010, Missye Brickell

Legislation and Policy Brief

To ensure that all contractors who commit crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan can be prosecuted effectively in the United States, Congress must pass legislation to update Federal criminal law and fill the gaps that may leave certain types of contractors free from any criminal liability. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2010 (CEJA) attempts to do just that, and while it may deter some PMCs from participating in the U.S. military and security contracting market, the benefits of having a fully accountable U.S. legal system outweigh the drawbacks for individual contracting companies.

Strategic Globalization: International Law As An Extension Of Domestic Political Conflict, Jide Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

Traditional accounts in both the international law and international relations literature largely assume that great powers like the United States enter into international legal commitments in order to resolve global cooperative problems or to advance objective state interests. Contrary to these accounts, this Article suggests that an incumbent regime (or partisan elites within the regime) may often seek to use international legal commitments to overcome domestic obstacles to their narrow policy and electoral objectives. In this picture, an incumbent regime may deploy international law to expand the geographical scope of political conflict across borders in order to isolate the domestic …

The Third Time Is Not Always A Charm: The Troublesome Legacy Of A Dutch Art Dealer-The Limitation And Act Of State Defenses In Looted Art Cases, Bert Demarsin

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What Can Be Done Against Cyber Hate? Freedom Of Speech Versus Hate Speech In The Council Of Europe, Isabelle Rorive

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article examines the tension between freedom of speech and the regulation of hate speech on the internet, focusing on the challenges posed by conflicting international laws and jurisdictional issues. It highlights the Council of Europe's efforts to address cyber hate through legal frameworks like the Cybercrime Convention and the Additional Protocol, while discussing the limitations of these measures. The co-regulatory model, combining government oversight with private sector accountability, is presented as a potential solution, though concerns about censorship and free speech remain.

The "Define And Punish" Clause And The Limit Of Universal Jurisdiction, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article examines whether the "Define and Punish" clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to criminalize foreign conduct unconnected to the United States. Answering this question requires exploring the Constitution's "Piracies and Felonies" provision. While it is hard to believe this can still be said of any constitutional provision, no previous work has examined the scope of the "Piracies and Felonies" powers. Yet the importance of this inquiry is more than academic. Despite its obscurity, the Piracies and Felonies power is the purported Art. I basis for a statute currently in force, which represents Congress's most aggressive use of universal …

Originalism And The Difficulties Of History In Foreign Affairs, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting …

Conflict Of Law And Surreptitious Taping Of Telephone Conversations, Carol M. Bast

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

Choice Of Law, The Constitution And Lochner, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Beyond The Article I Horizon: Congress’S Enumerated Powers And Universal Jurisdiction Over Drug Crimes, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This paper explores the Article I limits faced by Congress in exercising universal jurisdiction (UJ) – that is, regulating extraterritorial conduct by foreigners with no affect on or connection the U.S. While UJ is becoming increasingly popular in Europe for the punishment of human rights offenses, Congress's primary use of UJ today is under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. This obscure law allows the U.S. to punish for violating U.S. drug laws foreign defendants on foreign vessels in international waters. The MDLEA's UJ provisions raise fundamental questions about the source and extent of Congress's constitutional power to regulate purely …

Letting "Privates" Be Private: Toward A Right Of Gender Selfdetermination, Samuel E. Bartos

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note examines the contradictory landscape of transgender jurisprudence, particularly focusing on the legal struggles of transgender individuals to achieve recognition of their gender identity. It highlights the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in In the Matter of the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner, which denied legal recognition of a transgender individual's marriage, contrasted with more progressive rulings in other jurisdictions. The analysis underscores the need for a consistent and inclusive legal framework to address the rights of transgender individuals, emphasizing the potential for future Supreme Court intervention to establish uniform standards.

Preemption And Federal Common Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …