Jurisdiction Commons^™

Kiobel V. Royal Dutch Petroleum: Delineating The Bounds Of The Alien Tort Statute, Tara Mcgrath

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews the upcoming Supreme Court case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court will address questions regarding the Alien Tort Statute and its applicability to foreign conduct and foreign litigants. The case will require the Court to reexamine the bounds of a long-ago established tort doctrine in light of more modern considerations and developments in international law.

Remand: One Constitution, One Standard, Stephen E. Abraham, William M. Hensley

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Federal Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation And The History Of State Judicial Selection And Tenure, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Few questions in the field of Federal Courts have captivated scholars like the question of whether Congress can simultaneously divest both lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims and thereby leave those claims to be litigated in state courts alone. Such a divestiture is known today as “jurisdiction stripping,” and, despite literally decades of scholarship on the subject, scholars have largely been unable to reconcile two widely held views: jurisdiction stripping should be unconstitutional because it deprives constitutional rights of adjudication by independent judges and jurisdiction stripping is nonetheless perfectly consistent with …

What Federalism & Why? Science Versus Doctrine, Stephen E. Gottlieb

Pepperdine Law Review

The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and prohibits the national government, the states or both from doing some things. The Court has inferred principles of federalism from those provisions. The political science community has treated the advantages of federalism as contingent on whether federalism deepens or diffuses conflict or opens competition for power. The United States Supreme Court's approach does neither; it has been trying to clarify and police a very different boundary. Even on its own terms, however, the Court's justifications do not work - a problem made …

A Tort Statute, With Aliens And Pirates, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

The pirates of the Caribbean are back. Not in another fantastical film but in the litigation over the reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). For the first time since they dealt with the legal issues raised by a wave of maritime predation in the Caribbean in the early nineteenth century, Supreme Court justices are seriously discussing piracy. This crime has emerged as the test case for evaluating the major controversies about the reach of the statute -- namely, extraterritorial application and the existence of corporate liability. At oral argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell, justices of all persuasions …

Discretion, Delegation, And Defining In The Constitution's Law Of Nations Clause, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

Never in the nation's history has the scope and meaning of Congress's power to "Define and Punish. . . Offenses Against the Law of Nations" mattered as much. The once obscure power has in recent years been exercised in broad and controversial ways, ranging from civil human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statue (ATS) to military commissions trials in Guantanamo Bay. Yet it has not yet been recognized that these issues both involve the Offenses Clauses, and indeed raise common constitutional questions.First, can Congress only "Define" offenses that clearly already exist in international law, or does it have discretion …

Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, And The Ministerial Exemption, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …

Article Iii And Removal Jurisdiction: The Demise Of The Complete Diversity Rule And A Proposed Return To Minimal Diversity, Rodney K. Miller

Oklahoma Law Review

The complete diversity rule is broken. Although easily applied in theory (federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an action on diversity grounds only when no party is of the same citizenship as any adverse party), over time the number of judicially and legislatively created exceptions to the rule, as well as their varying and inconsistent application by the federal courts, has created an environment in which similarly situated parties are treated differently based solely on the forum in which the litigation is brought. In the removal context, depending upon the forum in which an action is filed, a …

Can Equitable Estoppel Be Used As An Effective Way For A Legal Parent To Obtain Child Support For The Children Of A Separated Same-Sex Couple?, Josh Smolow

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …

State Law Holocaust-Era Art Claims And Federal Executive Power, Jennifer Anglim Kreder

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Assessing The State Of State Constitutionalism, Jim Rossi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

State constitutions are terribly important legal documents, but their interpretation is remarkably understudied (and, of course, highly undertheorized) in the academic literature. This review essay discusses Robert Williams’s welcome new book, The Law of American State Constitutions (Oxford University Press, 2009). After summarizing the content of Williams’s book, it discusses the normative significance of his work, focusing especially on his discussion of independent state constitutions and the positive theory of interpretation he advances. The essay concludes by highlighting some areas where the field of state constitutional law is in need of further advancement, including research that positions state constitutions within …

The Complexities Of Judicial Takings, D. Benjamin Barros

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Differentiating The Federal Circuit, Elizabeth I. Winston

Scholarly Articles

In 1982, Congress created the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Often referred to as an experiment, the Federal Circuit has flourished. Born again from the ashes of its predecessors, the aptly nicknamed Phoenix Court continues to grow in significance, stature, and strength. As it grows, however, the court remains rooted in its history and in its unique nature. This Article explores the Federal Circuit’s structure and its impact on the development of Federal Circuit jurisprudence. The Federal Circuit is distinguishable by more than its national jurisdiction – the very essence of the court sets it apart …

Forum, Federalism, And Free Markets: An Empirical Study Of Judicial Behavior Under The Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, Mehmet K. Konar-Steenberg, Anne F. Peterson

Faculty Scholarship

This study examines judicial behavior under the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine by drawing on an original database of 459 state and Federal appellate cases decided between 1970 and 2009. The authors use logit regression to show that state judges are more likely to uphold state and local laws against dormant Commerce Clause attack than their Federal judicial counterparts, a result that is consistent with the interstate rivalry issues animating the doctrine. The study also finds that Republican-dominated judicial panels at the state level are more likely to side with tax challengers invoking the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine than are Democratic …

Prosecuting Federal Crimes In State Courts, Michael G. Collins, Jonathan R. Nash

Faculty Articles

Despite the ancient maxim that the courts of one sovereign will not “execute the penal laws of another,” they sometimes do. For example, federal courts can hear state-law criminal prosecutions of federal officers for acts taken in the course of their duties that are brought initially in state court and are then removed to federal court. In addition, some states now open their courthouse doors to officials from other states to pursue tax enforcement actions against delinquent taxpayers. But states still do not (and perhaps cannot) entertain prosecutions of fugitives solely for crimes committed in another state because the Constitution …

American Academy Of Religion V. Napolitano, Margaret Laufman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

End-Of-Life Decision-Making In Canada: The Report By The Royal Society Of Canada Expert Panel On End-Of-Life Decision-Making, Udo Schuklenk, Johannes J. M. Van Delden, Jocelyn Downie, Sheila Mclean, Ross Upshur, Daniel Marc Weinstock

Reports & Public Policy Documents

This report on end-of-life decision-making in Canada was produced by an international expert panel and commissioned by the Royal Society of Canada. It consists of five chapters: Chapter 1 reviews what is known about end-of-life care and opinions about assisted dying in Canada, Chapter 2 reviews the legal status quo in Canada with regard to various forms of assisted death, Chapter 3 reviews ethical issues pertaining to assisted death. The analysis is grounded in core values central to Canada’s constitutional order, Chapter 4 reviews the experiences had in a number of jurisdictions that have decriminalized or recently reviewed assisted dying …

Negotiating Federalism, Erin Ryan

Faculty Publications

Bridging the fields of federalism and negotiation theory, Negotiating Federalism analyzes how public actors navigate difficult federalism terrain by negotiating directly with counterparts across state-federal lines. In contrast to the stylized, zero-sum model of federalism that pervades political discourse and judicial doctrine, the Article demonstrates that the boundary between state and federal power is negotiated on scales large and small, and on an ongoing basis. It is also the first to recognize the procedural tools that bilateral federalism bargaining offers to supplement unilateral federalism interpretation in contexts of jurisdictional overlap.

The Article begins by situating its inquiry within the age-old …

The Unsettled Nature Of The Union, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article is a response to Bradford R. Clark, The Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1817 (2010).

In his article, The Eleventh Amendment and the Nature of the Union, Professor Bradford Clark offeres an explanation for the puzzling text of the Eleventh Amendment, which appears to preclude federal jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of other states but not by its own citizens. Professor Clark argues that the Amendment's text made sense to the Founders because they did not envision any suits against the states arising under federal law. …

Gender-Classified Imports: Equal Protection Violations In The Harmonized Tariff Schedule Of The United States, Jason Lewis

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that gender-based classifications in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) likely violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It critiques the Federal Circuit's application of a lower level of scrutiny in Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States and advocates for courts to apply intermediate scrutiny, as established by Craig v. Boren, to such classifications. The analysis also examines the role of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in trade negotiations and asserts that international agreements cannot override constitutional protections.

Judicial Activism And The Interpretation Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Bring[Ing] Our Enemies To Justice”: Terrorism And The Court, Anna Elazan

Legislation and Policy Brief

This article focuses on the venue of Mohammad’s trial and is broken into three sections. The first section reviews the historical use of military tribunals. This section begins by looking at the basis for Presidential authority to authorize the use of military commissions. This section then outlines the first use of military commissions since World War II. President George W. Bush’s authorization parallels the provisions in President Franklin Roosevelt’s authorization of the use of commissions in the 1940s. However, following authorization, the military commissions were subject to judicial challenges and significant revision by Congress. Finally, this section tracks recent developments …

A Theoretical Justification For Special Solicitude: States And The Administrative State, Matthew S. Melamed

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, focusing on the doctrine of special solicitude in standing analysis for states. It argues that the Court's recognition of Massachusetts' quasisovereign interest to challenge the EPA's denial of a rulemaking petition reflects a federalist concern, ensuring states can hold federal administrative agencies accountable. The analysis critiques the Court's reliance on special solicitude, highlighting tensions between traditional standing requirements and the unique role of states in constitutional adjudication. The article posits that the special function model of standing, which emphasizes states' roles as protectors of citizens' interests, provides a …

Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I take up the Court’s less heralded second holding in Boumediene v. Bush - that a federal habeas court must have the institutional capacity to find facts, which in Boumediene itself meant that a federal district court must be available to the petitioners. Although this has gone largely unnoticed, I contend that this holding is inconsistent with the Madisonian Compromise - the standard view that the Constitution does not require jurisdiction in any federal court, except the Supreme Court. In fact, it appears that the Court adopted Justice Story’s position that the Constitution requires vesting of jurisdiction …