Jurisdiction Commons^™

‘Insistent’ Objectors: The (Ab)Use Of Procedural Defenses Before The International Court Of Justice, Damian A. Gonzalez-Salzberg, Eoin Campbell

Michigan Journal of International Law

Procedural defenses refer to tactical devices that object to either a court’s jurisdiction or to the admissibility of an application, aimed at stopping a court from deciding on the merits of a case or, at least, at limiting the scope of its decision. From its creation in June 1945 and up to the end of 2024, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) has adjudicated 101 cases, with almost 80% of them featuring procedural defenses raised by states. These defenses have not only been plentiful, but have been extremely effective, leading to the ICJ’s refusal to decide on the merits of …

Jurisdictional Waters, Jamison E. Colburn

Michigan Law Review

A review of Waters of the United States: POTUS, SCOTUS, WOTUS, and the Politics of a National Resource. By Royal C. Gardner.

The Justice For Victims Of War Crimes Act: A Dangerous Expansion Of Universal Jurisdiction To Non-International Armed Conflicts, Yuyan (Nicole) Zhang

Michigan Journal of International Law

Universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in noninternational armed conflict (“NIACs”) has yet to develop a firm legal foundation under international law. The Justice for the Victims of War Crimes Act of 2023, however, amended the War Crimes Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2441) and extended universal jurisdiction to NIACs. This overreach risks infringing on the sovereignty of NIAC-affected states and destabilizing their ongoing peace processes. Many such states prioritize reconciliation through mechanisms like truth commissions over retributive justice through criminal trials. The prosecution of their nationals under U.S. law could undermine their sovereign decisions and unravel delicate efforts toward peace. …

Burdens Of Proof In Criminal Procedure, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

The Supreme Court’s haphazard approach to allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure has created a system in which constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless simply because defendants are required to prove things they cannot possibly know. Even though allocations of the burden of proof often drive litigation outcomes, the Court has failed to establish clear burden allocation structures for cases arising under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving lower courts split about how to allocate the burdens. When the Supreme Court does allocate burdens, it often does so without explanation or consideration of key factors. Recent Supreme …

After Courts: Democratizing Statutory Law, Ryan D. Doerfler, Samuel Moyn

Michigan Law Review

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton argued for locating interpretive authority over law separately from those institutions tasked with formulating it. Hamilton’s vision, never accurate as a description of American practice, has not been credible for a long time. To the extent enormous power is still allocated to judges, our legal institutions have been out of step with our legal theory, which has long regarded them as political actors and policymakers. More practically, every term it is clearer and clearer that the role of the Supreme Court in statutory cases (including checking administrative rulemaking and other processes) is, if anything, …

Younger And Older Abstention, Fred O. Smith Jr.

Michigan Law Review

When victims of systemic rights violations in state criminal proceedings seek federal court relief, governmental defendants often ask federal courts to abstain for reasons of federalism. These arguments frequently disregard the Supreme Court’s emphasis that abstention is a narrow exception to federal courts’ duty to exercise jurisdiction. Lower federal courts are increasingly employing a form of “free-floating federalism,” diverging from the Supreme Court’s careful balance between comity and individual rights. This has led to lower courts’ significant expansion of criminal abstention doctrine, leaving severe irreparable harm unaddressed in an increasingly broad range of settings, such as pretrial detention and child …

Comity & Federalism In Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation, Jensen Lillquist

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and held that states may regulate abortion in whatever manner they wish. In the wake of Dobbs, commentators and laypersons have focused primarily on its implications for reproductive rights and other fundamental rights—such as gay marriage. Less often discussed are the questions that arise regarding state extraterritorial jurisdiction. Since Dobbs, a patchwork of laws has developed: pro-life states have placed greater restrictions on abortion, while pro-choice states have sought to expand abortion access. Questions have arisen regarding whether and to what extent states may regulate the …

The Last Frontier: Fair Procedure In Informal Administrative Adjudication, Michael Asimow

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The federal government engages in massive amounts of informal adjudication - a process that resolves a dispute between the government and a private party by making an individualized and legally binding decision without being required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if the dispute is not settled. This article sketches the highly diverse world of federal informal adjudication and surveys the procedural requirements imposed on it by due process and federal statutes. It proposes a set of best practices for conducting and improving informal adjudication that are rooted in those legal requirements. Agencies should adapt these practices to their individual circumstances …

Bounded Extraterritoriality, Ruth Mason, Michael S. Knoll

Michigan Law Review

Twenty-first-century politics has inspired a new mode of interstate rivalries and reprisals consisting not of the tariffs that plagued the Founding but rather of regulations with significant impacts outside the enacting state’s borders. Employing the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine of extraterritoriality, the Supreme Court has limited overbroad state regulations, but the extraterritoriality doctrine is unclear both in its normative grounding and practical application. This Article proposes a conceptual framework that situates the prohibition of extraterritoriality as an aspect of horizontal federalism. Our conceptualization of extraterritoriality enables us to distinguish it from two dormant Commerce Clause doctrines with which it is …

Glossip V. State Of Oklahoma: Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

Amici are law professors who teach and write about the federal courts, habeas corpus, and the relationship between federal and state law. A list of amici is attached as Appendix A. Amici sign this brief in their individual capacities and not on behalf of their institutions; institutional affiliations are provided solely for identification purposes.

Peripheral Detention, Transfer, And Access To The Courts, Jessica Rofé

Michigan Law Review

In the last forty years, immigration detention in the U.S. has grown exponentially, largely concentrated in the southern states and outside of the country’s metropoles. In turn, federal immigration officials routinely transfer immigrants from their communities to remote jails and prisons hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, often in jurisdictions where the law is more favorable to the government. These transfers are conducted without notice or process and frequently occur on weekends or in the predawn hours, when offices are closed and interested parties are lucky to access voicemail.

Federal immigration officials’ use of peripheral detention and transfer significantly …

The Right To Remove In Agency Adjudication, Christopher J. Walker, David Zaring

Articles

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutional future of agency adjudication, especially in the context of agency enforcement actions and the imposition of civil penalties. If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit on any of its three independent reasons for unconstitutionality, agency enforcement and adjudication schemes across the federal regulatory state will be severely disrupted, in ways that are detrimental to both the regulator and the regulated. In this Essay, we propose a path forward: In certain circumstances, the regulated party should have a right to remove an enforcement action from an in-house agency adjudication …

Congress And Shifting Sands In Administrative Law., Christopher J. Walker

Articles

In recent years, we have seen an anti-administrativist turn in the federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court limiting agency power in important respects. These shifting sands in administrative law seem to be motivated, at least in part, by the Court’s perception of the rise of presidential administration and decline in legislative activity. As part of the Widener Commonwealth Law Review Judging in Administrative Law Symposium, this Essay assesses how the Court has responded to concerns about over-presidentialism and then sketches out several ways Congress can respond to reassert itself in federal lawmaking.

Could Moore Have Been Mooted?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

On December 5 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore, the first constitutional challenge to an income tax provision to come before the Court in more than a century. The issue is whether the word "income" in the 16th Amendment includes a requirement that the income be realized, as implied by some statements in the previous constitutional challenge to an income tax provision considered by the Court, Eisner v. Macomber.

The Oligarchic Courthouse: Jurisdiction, Corporate Power, And Democratic Decline, Helen Hershkoff, Luke Norris

Michigan Law Review

Jurisdiction is foundational to the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely for this reason that subject matter jurisdiction, the species of judicial power that gives a court authority to resolve a dispute, has today come to the center of a struggle between corporate litigants and the regulatory state. In a pronounced trend, corporations are using jurisdictional maneuvers to manipulate forum choice. Along the way, they are wearing out less-resourced parties, circumventing hearings on the merits, and insulating themselves from laws that seek to govern their behavior. Corporations have done so by making creative arguments to lock plaintiffs out of …

International Advisory Proceedings On Climate Change, Benoit Mayer

Michigan Journal of International Law

Several island states are expected to be severely harmed by climate change and rising sea levels. In late 2021, several island states launched two legal initiatives aimed at requesting advisory opinions of international courts on the law applicable to climate change. In the hope of fostering more action to combat climate change, these states are asking international courts to clarify the obligations of states to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pay reparations for harm already caused.

This article provides the first comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and desirability of international advisory proceedings on climate change. It analyzes recent developments and …

Catch And Release Jurisdiction, Adam B. Sopko

Michigan Law Review Online

In Catch and Kill Jurisdiction, Professor Zachary Clopton sheds light on an increasingly common phenomenon in which federal courts are expanding the power of the federal judiciary in a way that frustrates the enforcement of substantive rights. Federal courts expansively interpret their jurisdiction to reach cases that arguably belong in state court, then apply federal procedural doctrines to dismiss the cases on non-merits grounds. First catch, then kill. Clopton argues we find catch and kills when the federal court system is not overly burdened and in areas where federal judges are “hostile” to a class of claims or litigants. Catch …

Restoring Indian Reservation Status: An Empirical Analysis, Michael K. Velchik, Jeffery Zhang

Articles

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the eastern half of Oklahoma was Indian country. This bombshell decision was contrary to settled expectations and government practices spanning 111 years. It also was representative of an increasing trend of federal courts recognizing Indian sovereignty over large and economically significant areas of the country, even where Indians have not asserted these claims in many years and where Indians form a small minority of the inhabitants.

Although McGirt and similar cases fundamentally turn on questions of statutory and treaty interpretation, they are often couched in consequence-based arguments about the good …

In Search Of The First-Round Knockout A Rule 12(B) Primer, Kate Rogers, Leonard Niehoff

Articles

Boxing enthusiasts define success not just by wins and losses but also by knockouts. Many of the greatest fighters in the history of boxing—Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, and Sugar Ray Robinson—were known for their knockout punching power. Within the category of knockouts, the gold standard is the first-round knockout, the moment when stunned fans watch a fighter take the opponent out of the contest before either of them has broken a sweat.

International Investment Policy And The Coming Wave Of Data-Flow Disputes, Lucas Daniel Cuatrecasas

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

The ability to move digital data internationally has become an asset to countless businesses. Yet an increasing number of countries’ data regulations hinder these cross-border data flows. As such, many have speculated that companies could protect their interests in data flows through international investment law, a regime that lets companies sue foreign governments for harm to private assets. Yet the literature has largely been cursory or equivocal about these suits’ likely success. This Article argues that, under current law, such suits have a strong—if not unassailable—legal basis. Critically, the reality of global data regulation and digital commerce means such suits …

Territoriality In American Criminal Law, Emma Kaufman

Michigan Law Review

It is a bedrock principle of American criminal law that the authority to try and punish someone for a crime arises from the crime’s connection to a particular place. Thus, we assume that a person who commits a crime in some location— say, Philadelphia—can be arrested by Philadelphia police for conduct deemed criminal by the Pennsylvania legislature, prosecuted in a Philadelphia court, and punished in a Pennsylvania prison. The idea that criminal law is tied to geography in this way is called the territoriality principle. This idea is so familiar that it usually goes unstated.

This Article foregrounds and questions …

Catch And Kill Jurisdiction, Zachary D. Clopton

Michigan Law Review

In catch and kill journalism, a tabloid buys a story that could be published elsewhere and then deliberately declines to publish it. In catch and kill jurisdiction, a federal court assumes jurisdiction over a case that could be litigated in state court and then declines to hear the merits through a nonmerits dismissal. Catch and kill journalism undermines the free flow of information. Catch and kill jurisdiction undermines the enforcement of substantive rights. And, importantly, because catch and kill jurisdiction relies on jurisdictional and procedural law, it is often able to achieve ends that would be politically unpalatable by other …

Reed V. Goertz: Brief Of Federal Courts Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Leah Litman, Eve Brensike Primus

Appellate Briefs

This brief is filed on behalf of legal scholars who study federal jurisdiction, federal procedure, and constitutional law, and who have taught and written on the interplay between proceedings in state and federal courts.<\p>

The Court should hold that § 1983 claims challenging the constitutionality of state post-conviction DNA testing statutes do not accrue until the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing. That is the only rule that comports with principles of federalism and comity, which favor sequencing federal litigation after related state proceedings. Unnecessary co-pendency of state and federal litigation invites unnecessary intrusions into state processes. If a …

The Myth Of The Great Writ, Leah M. Litman

Articles

Habeas corpus is known as the “Great Writ” because it supposedly protects individual liberty against government overreach and guards against wrongful detentions. This idea shapes habeas doctrine, federal courts theories, and habeas-reform proposals.

It is also incomplete. While the writ has sometimes protected individual liberty, it has also served as a vehicle for the legitimation of excesses of governmental power. A more complete picture of the writ emerges when one considers traditionally neglected areas of public law that are often treated as distinct—the law of slavery and freedom, Native American affairs, and immigration. There, habeas has empowered abusive exercises of …

Garland V. Gonzalez: Brief For Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Leah Litman

Appellate Briefs

Amici are a group of philosophically diverse law school professors who offer a unique perspective about federal courts’ equitable powers and principles of statutory interpretation. Together, amici share an interest in ensuring that federal law be construed in accordance with its text and longstanding background principles regarding review of executive action.<\p>

From our Nation’s Founding, federal courts have exercised broad equitable authority to issue injunctions prohibiting executive officials from acting beyond their lawfully conferred authority. This bedrock power to restrain ultra vires acts by the executive branch is a foundational tenet of the American legal system. This Court has long …

The Contribution Of Eu Law To The Regulation Of Online Speech, Luc Von Danwitz

Michigan Technology Law Review

Internet regulation in the European Union (EU) is receiving significant attention and criticism in the United States. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in the case Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland, in which the ECJ found a take-down order against Facebook for defamatory content with global effect permissible under EU law, was closely scrutinized in the United States. These transsystemic debates are valuable but need to be conducted with a thorough understanding of the relevant legal framework and its internal logic. This note aims to provide the context to properly assess the role the ECJ and EU law play …

Regulating Jurisdiction Collisions In International Law: The Case Of The European Court Of Justice's Exclusive Jurisdiction In Law Of The Sea Disputes, Darío Maestro

Michigan Journal of International Law

To maximize their chances of receiving a favorable disposition, claimants often aspire to bring complex disputes to more than one international court. However, doing so may bring their claims under the jurisdiction of more than one branch of international law simultaneously, creating what this note calls a jurisdiction collision. This practice poses a challenge to the cohesion of international adjudication as competing international tribunals, relying on differing precedents, may give differing interpretations to the same rule.

Concentrating on the classical roots of international law and its changing significance over time and within different contexts, this note considers the benefits …

Hamama V. Adducci: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Margo Schlanger

Appellate Briefs

Question Presented:

Petitioners are Iraqis with final orders of removal who lived for years or decades in the United States under orders of supervision, because Iraq would not accept their repatriation. In 2017 Iraq indicated it might change its policy; it allowed repatriation of several Iraqis with final orders. Petitioners and others similarly situated were suddenly detained and threatened with immediate removal, without the opportunity to challenge their removal in immigration court. Petitioners, who include Christians, Yezidis, Kurds, and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, faced likely torture and death in Iraq. After their final orders of removal were …

Plaintiff Personal Jurisdiction And Venue Transfer, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Personal jurisdiction usually focuses on the rights of the defendant. This is because a plaintiff implicitly consents to personal jurisdiction in the court where the plaintiff chooses to file. But what if the defendant seeks to transfer venue to a court in a state in which the plaintiff has no contacts and never consented to personal jurisdiction? Lower courts operate on the assumption that in both ordinary venue-transfer cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and multidistrict-litigation cases under § 1407(a), personal-jurisdiction concerns for plaintiffs simply do not apply. I contest that assumption. Neither statute expands the statutory authorization of federal-court …

Solving The Nonresident Alien Due Process Paradox In Personal Jurisdiction, Robin J. Effron

Michigan Law Review Online

Personal jurisdiction has a nonresident alien problem. Or, more accurately, personal jurisdiction has two nonresident alien problems. The first is the extent to which the specter of the nonresident alien defendant has overshadowed-if not unfairly driven-the discourse and doctrine over constitutional personal jurisdiction. The second is that the constitutional right to resist personal jurisdiction enjoyed by the nonresident alien defendant in a civil lawsuit is remarkably out of alignment with that same nonresident alien's ability to assert nearly every other constitutional right. Neither of these observations is new, although the first problem has drawn far more scholarly attention than the …