Courts Commons^™

Open And Shut: Non-Removal Statutesand Door-Closing Penalties, Isaac Zwerling

Pepperdine Law Review

There is a longstanding tension in the Court’s treatment of non-removal statutes and door-closing penalties. On the one hand, the Court has held non-removal statutes—business registration statutes that condition a foreign corporation’s license on that corporation’s right to remove cases brought against it to federal court—pose an unconstitutional limit on federal court access. On the other, the Court has extended door-closing penalties statutes prohibiting unregistered foreign corporations from initiating an action in the forum state—to federal courts sitting in diversity. This Article surveys how the Court arrived at this puzzling result. It does so by analyzing each line of cases …

Joinder, Not Jurisdiction: Toward A New Theory Of Standing, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This Article builds on an important development in the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence to propose a novel theory that would allow more meaningful access to federal courts while vindicating legitimate separation-of-powers concerns. In its recent decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court endorsed a theory of standing based on Article II, writing that litigation between private parties—even when explicitly authorized by Congress—can run afoul of the executive branch’s interest in “how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.” This Article II move has been justifiably criticized. But it is …

303 Creative, Exclusive Private Enforcement, And Blue-State Revenge, Howard M. Wasserman, Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes

Journal of Legislation

Red states have made exclusive private enforcement schemes targeting locally unpopular but constitutionally protected conduct a cornerstone of culture-war legal strategy. Laws such the Texas Heartbeat Act (“S.B. 8”) in 2021 and anti-“WOKE” laws forego public enforcement in favor of private enforcement; this forces targeted federal rights-holders to vindicate their rights by raising the law’s constitutional invalidity as a defense to liability rather than through pre-enforcement offensive litigation against the government or government officials responsible for enforcing the law. This threatens rights-holders with a wave of costly and burdensome litigation and liability.

Blue states and liberal scholars and advocates have …

Life, The Universe, And The Judicial Power, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

In figuring out the role of the federal courts in the constitutional structure, the obvious place to start is with the Constitution. But what does the Constitution tell us about the federal courts and the judicial power vested in them?

Surprisingly little—perhaps even shockingly little—when one reflects on it. The “judicial Power” is one of the three governmental powers regarded by the founding generation as having “an unalterable foundation in nature.” The Constitution, however, does not define that power, instead taking for granted that everyone will simply know what “judicial Power” involves. History has proven that assumption to be false. …

Administering Presidential Elections And Counting Electoral Votes After Trump V. Anderson, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

In the landmark case Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court unanimously held that states lack the unilateral power to exclude presidential candidates from the ballot on the basis of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But while the Court was united in its essential holding, the Justices fractured in their reasoning, leaving significant questions about Congress's role in enforcing Section 3 against presidential candidates.

This Article examines the fault lines in Trump v. Anderson and analyzes how Congress's power to count electoral votes under the Twelfth Amendment intersects with its authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. …

Judicial Reform From The Inside Out, Daniel Epps, Marin K. Levy

Scholarship@WashULaw

Prepared for the Notre Dame Law Review’s Spring 2025 Federal Courts Symposium on the 100th Anniversary of the Judiciary Act of 1925.

The Judiciary Act of 1925, the subject of this Symposium, is known as “The Judges Bill” for a reason. The Justices of the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Taft in particular, produced the Act and persuaded Congress to enact it. To modern eyes, such efforts seem indecorous; perhaps even scandalous. But in fact, Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges have been extensively involved in judicial reform throughout American history. This Essay examines participation by federal judges in …

The Purpose Of The Preliminary Injunction, Samuel Bray

Journal Articles

This Article explores a reshaping of the preliminary injunction that is occurring in the federal courts. A preliminary injunction is designed to be a "hold in place" order, blocking actions by the parties that would undermine the efficacy of the court's remedial options. But the preliminary injunction is becoming a device for accelerating the merits decision. Instead of a four-factor test for preliminary relief, increasingly there is one factor: the merits. This Article critiques this transformation, and it argues that the preliminary injunction should be recentered on the protection of the court's remedial options.

The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker

Pepperdine Law Review

Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …

Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts

Pepperdine Law Review

Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet. Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends long-standing …

An Unconstitutional Band-Aid: The Practice Of Sitting By Designation In The Federal Judiciary, Michaela Conley

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarship@WashULaw

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: by depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. In theory, it frees up the political branches and the states to act without fear of judicial second-guessing. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction stripping measures …

Biden, Bennet, And Bipartisan Federal Judicial Selection, Carl Tobias

University of Colorado Law Review Forum

No abstract provided.

Right For Any Reason, Jeffrey M. Anderson

Cardozo Law Review

The chances of winning an appeal in federal court are slim. One reason for that is an array of rules of appellate review that “stack the deck” in favor of the appellee and the lower court’s judgment. One such rule of review is “right for any reason,” the rule that an appellee may defend a lower court’s judgment on any grounds supported by the record—even grounds that the lower court rejected or ignored. The judgment may be right, even if the reasons are wrong. In 1924, the Supreme Court described the rule as “settled”—and felt no need to cite authority …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

Proper Parties, Proper Relief, Samuel L. Bray, William Baude

Journal Articles

From the Introduction

In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the critical question in several major cases: the two challenges to the Biden Administration’s first student loan forgiveness plan, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, as well as the challenge to the Administration’s immigration priorities in United States v. Texas and the race-discrimination challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act in Haaland v. Brackeen. Standing has featured heavily in journalistic coverage of the decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. And standing may have been the reason for the Court’s stay …

Stare Decisis And Intersystemic Adjudication, Nina Varsava

Notre Dame Law Review

Interpreting and following precedent is a complicated business. Various reasonable but conflicting methods of ascertaining the legal effect of precedent exist. Differences between practices of precedent or doctrines of stare decisis are particularly salient between legal systems or jurisdictions. For example, a state’s judges might embrace different stare decisis norms than federal judges. This situation presents a major quandary for intersystemic jurisprudence that has been largely overlooked in the scholarly literature.

Are law-applying judges in the intersystemic context bound by the law-supplying jurisdiction’s methods of interpreting precedent? For example, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adjudicates a question of …

In Defense Of Felon-In-Possession Laws, Dru Stevenson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

How In The World Could They Reach That Conclusion?, Hon. Carlton Reeves

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Inherent Judicial Authority: A Study In Creative Ambiguity, Charles M. Yablon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Interpretive Communities Clash On Immigration Law: The Courts’ Mediating Role In Noncitizens’ Rights And Remedies, Peter Margulies

Touro Law Review

Immigration law gains clarity through the lens of Robert Cover's compelling work on law as a "system of meaning." Cover's vision inspires us to consider immigration law as a contest between two interpretive communities: acolytes of the protective approach, which sees law as a haven for noncitizens fleeing harm in their home countries, and followers of the regulatory approach, which stresses sovereignty and strict adherence to legal categories. Immigration law's contest between contending camps need not be a zero-sum game. As Cover and Alex Aleinikoff observed in their classic article on habeas corpus, a legal remedy can also be a …

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

The Million-Dollar Diversity Docket, Steven Gensler, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

What would happen if Congress raised the jurisdictional amount in the diversity jurisdiction statute? Given that it has been almost 25 years since the last increase, we are probably overdue for another one. But to what amount? And with what effect? What would happen if Congress raised the jurisdictional amount from the current $75,000 to $250,000 or, say, $1 million? Using a novel hand-coded data set of pleadings in 2900 cases, we show that the jurisdictional amount is not a neutral throttle. Instead, different areas of law, different parts of the country, and different litigants are more affected by changes …

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Potential For Defensive Litigation, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard M. Wasserman

SMU Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act (SB8) prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the law adopts a unique enforcement scheme—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how SB8’s exclusive reliance on private enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional hurdles to challenging the law’s constitutional validity and obtaining judicial review. This piece explores defensive litigation, in which …

Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …

Weaponizing En Banc, Neal Devins, Allison Orr Larsen

Faculty Publications

The federal courts of appeals embrace the ideal that judges are committed to rule-of-law norms, collegiality, and judicial independence. Whatever else divides them, these judges generally agree that partisan identity has no place on the bench. Consequently, when a court of appeals sits “en banc,” (i.e., collectively) the party affiliations of the three-judge panel under review should not matter. Starting in the 1980s, however, partisan ideology has grown increasingly important in the selection of federal appellate judges. It thus stands to reason—and several high-profile modern examples illustrate—that today’s en banc review could be used as a weapon by whatever party …

Contra Publius: The House As Cure For The Complaisance And Venality Of The Senate, Sam Solomon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Iron Rule, Jacob Bronsther, Guha Krishnamurthi

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Appointments In Presidential Election Years: The Case Of John Hessin Clark, Jonathan L. Entin

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

Eager To Follow: Methodological Precedent In Statutory Interpretation, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

An important recent development in the field of statutory interpretation is the emergence of a movement calling for "methodological precedent"--a regime under which courts give precedential effect to interpretive methodology. In such a system, a case would establish not only what a particular statute means but could also establish binding rules of methodology--which tools are valid, in what order, and so on. The movement for methodological precedent has attracted sharp criticism on normative grounds. But both sides of the normative debate agree on the premise that the federal courts generally do not give precedential effect to interpretive methodology today.

This …