Jurisdiction Commons^™

Comparison And Analysis Of Korea And Japan Status Of Forces Agreements And Their Implications For Iraq's Sofa, Jiyoung Cha

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the tension between protecting U.S. military personnel's rights and respecting host nations' sovereignty through Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), focusing on cases from Korea, Japan, and Iraq. It argues that while SOFAs are designed to protect U.S. soldiers, they often infringe on host countries' sovereignty, leading to diplomatic tensions. The analysis highlights the imbalance in SOFAs, favoring the U.S. and undermining host nations' sovereignty, as perceived by citizens and governments. The author suggests that the U.S. needs to adjust its SOFA approach to avoid diplomatic tensions, recommending a more balanced jurisdictional framework.

Everyone Knows Medellin; Has Anyone Heard Of O'Brien? Reconciling The United States And The International Community By Amending The Vccr, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 817 (2010), Steven M. Novak

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The False Modesty Of Department Of Revenue V. Davis: Disrupting The Dormant Commerce Clause Through The Traditional Public Function Doctrine, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Foreign Commerce Clause, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article comprehensively addresses Congress’s powers under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause. Congress has increasingly used the Clause to pass laws of unprecedented and aggressive reach over both domestic and foreign activity. Yet despite the Clause’s mounting significance for modern U.S. regulatory regimes at home and abroad, it remains an incredibly under-analyzed source of constitutional power. Moreover, faced with an increasing number of challenges under the Clause lower courts have been unable to coherently articulate the contours of Congress’s legislative authority. When courts have tried, their efforts have largely been wrong. The Article explains why they have been wrong and …

Article I, Article Iii, And The Limits Of Enumeration, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Article I, Section 8 and Article Ill, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution deploy parallel strategies for constraining the power of the federal government. They enumerate powers that the national legislature and judiciary, respectively, are permitted to exercise and thereby implicitly prohibit these two branches of government from exercising powers not enumerated. According to conventional thinking, this strategy has failed in connection with Article I and succeeded in connection with Article III. That is, it is widely acknowledged that Congress routinely exercises powers that are difficult to square with the Article I enumeration; but it is commonly thought that the …

Medellin, Delegation And Conflicts (Of Law), Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

The case of Medellin v. Texas presented the Supreme Court with a recurring question that has bedeviled judges, legal scholars, and political scientists-what effect, if any, must a United States court give to the decision of an international tribunal, particularly where, during the relevant time, the United States was party to a treaty protocol that bound it to that tribunal's judgments. While the Supreme Court held that the International Court of Justice's ("ICJ") decision was not enforceable federal law, its decision reflected an important recognition that the issues presented in that case were not limited to the specific area of …

'Equal Citizenship Stature': Justice Ginsburg’S Constitutional Visionq, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, Professor Siegel examines the nature and function of constitutional visions in the American constitutional order. He argues that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg possesses such a vision and that her vision is defined by her oft-stated commitment to “full human stature,” to “equal citizenship stature.” He then defends Justice Ginsburg’s characteristically incremental and moderate approach to realizing her vision. He does so in part by establishing that President Barack Obama articulated a similar vision and approach in his Philadelphia speech on American race relations and illustrated its capacity to succeed during the 2008 presidential election.

The Partially Prudential Doctrine Of Mootness, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

The conventional understanding of mootness doctrine is that it operates as a mandatory bar to federal court jurisdiction, derived from the "cases or controversies" clause of the United States Constitution, Article III. In two crucial respects, however, this Constitutional model - which was first adopted by the Supreme Court less than 45 years ago - fails to account for the manner in which courts actually address contentions of mootness. First, the commonly-applied exceptions to the mootness bar are not derived from the "cases or controversies" clause and cannot be reconciled with the Constitutional account of mootness. Second, courts regularly consider …

Assessing The Scope Of Williamson County: Why It Should Be Applied To Private Purpose Claims, Jonathan Rohr

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Supreme Court Preemption Doctrine, Christopher H. Schroeder

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States, law and policy always function within layers of government authority – federal, state, and local. This book primarily examines the choices policy makers, legislatures, or agencies face in allocating and coordinating responsibility among these layers; choices that will always be constrained by any limits placed on them by the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This chapter explores the doctrine that the Supreme Court has elaborated to address one set of those constraints, namely the doctrine of preemption.

Preemption doctrine rests on Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that the laws and treaties …

Historical Practice And The Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Response to: Anthony J. Bellia, Jr. & Bradford R. Clark, The Federal Common Law of Nations, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2009).

A.J. Bellia and Brad Clark have performed a valuable service for other scholars interested in foreign relations law and federal jurisdiction by collecting and illuminating—with their usual care and insight—the historical practice of both English and early American courts with respect to the law of nations. Their recent Article, The Federal Common Law of Nations, demonstrates that, while American courts have not generally treated customary international law (CIL) as supreme federal law, they have applied such law where …

No Notice, No Hearing, No Problem? The Constitutionality Of North Carolina's Prejudgment Statute, Jason A. Jennings

Campbell Law Review

Accordingly, this Comment will analyze the constitutionality of North Carolina's prejudgment statutes. Part I will take a brief look at the history of prejudgment statutes and the "power" doctrine articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Pennoyer v. Neff. Part II will discuss the impact of subsequent Supreme Court cases.

Rebalancing The Scales: Restoring The Availability Of Disparate Impact Causes Of Action In Title Vi Cases, Victor Suthammanont

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Problem Of Jurisdictional Non-Precedent, Stephen I. Vladeck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Most critiques of the Supreme Court's June 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush (including Justice Scalia's dissent in the same) have at their core the argument that Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is inconsistent with prior precedent, specifically the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. A closer read of Eisentrager, though, reveals a surprisingly unclear opinion by Justice Jackson, that seems to go out of its way to reach various issues on the merits even after suggesting that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by 22 Germans convicted of war crimes by a U.S. military tribunal …

Treaties As "Part Of Our Law", Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Is The Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean For The Contemporary Politics Of Judicial Federalism?), Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

As when Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided seventy years ago, federal courts today are seen as more favorable to corporate and business interests than many of their state-court brethren. The current situation is due in no small part to federal courts' comparatively pro-defendant approaches to summary judgment, class certification, and other procedural issues. The Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which tilts federal pleading standards in favor of defendants, will likely have similar federalism implications. This Article presents a straightforward argument that the Erie doctrine may require federal courts to follow state-law standards on summary judgment, …

Beyond Guantánamo, Obstacles And Options (Part Ii), Gregory S. Mcneal

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Beyond Guantánamo, Obstacles And Options, Gregory S. Mcneal

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Tax Incentives For Economic Development: Personal (And Pessimistic) Reflections, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Tax Nexus And Apportionment: Voice, Exit, And The Dormant Commerce Clause, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

The dormant Commerce Clause concept of tax nexus is best understood as a rough, but serviceable, proxy for the taxpayer's standing in the political process. This perspective leads me to defend Quill Corporation v. North Dakota and the much maligned physical presence test for tax nexus. As a matter of legislative policy, the critics of this test may be correct. However, as a matter of constitutional law, the courts should adhere to an expanded physical presence standard as Congress crafts for the long term broader nexus rules based on economic presence. Taxation is an inherently and irreducibly political matter. An …

What's Left Of The Twenty-First Amendment?, Jonathan M. Rotter, Joshua S. Stambaugh

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article examines the evolving jurisprudence of the Twenty-first Amendment and its intersection with the Dormant Commerce Clause, arguing that the Supreme Court has increasingly adopted a balanced approach. This approach prioritizes preventing economic discrimination while respecting state regulatory authority over liquor. The analysis highlights a shift away from a broad interpretation of the Twenty-first Amendment, emphasizing that states must justify discriminatory liquor regulations under a strict scrutiny standard. The Court’s rulings, particularly in Granholm v. Heald, have opened markets to out-of-state producers, promoting a more uniform national liquor market.

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

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 …

"I'D Grab At Anything. And I'D Forget." Domestic Violence Victim Testimony After Davis V. Washington, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 937 (2008), Nancee Alexa Barth

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nontestimonial Declarations Against Penal Interest: Eschewing The Corroboration Requirement For Inculpatory Statements, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 969 (2008), Michael Duffy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amending The Exceptions Clause, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Jurisdiction stripping is the new constitutional amendment, and the Exceptions Clause is the new Article V. But despite legal academia’s long-running obsessions with the meaning of constitutional amendment and the limits (if any) on Congress’s power to control federal jurisdiction, we still lack even a basic understanding of how these two forms of constitutional politicking interact. As legislators increasingly propose and pass jurisdiction-stripping legislation and pursue politically charged constitutional amendments, these constitutional processes have begun to step off of the pages of law reviews and into the halls of Congress. The looming collision between them makes it all the more …

Roth At Fifty: Reconsidering The Common Law Antecedents Of American Obscenity Doctrine, 41 J. Marshall L. Rev. 393 (2008), James R. Alexander

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Independent Of The Constitution?--Issues Raised By An Independent Federal Legislative Ethics Commission With Independent Enforcement Authority, Paul Taylor

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.