Jurisdiction Commons^™

Cross-Enforcing The Plain Smell Doctrine, Alexa Perez

Washington Law Review

In a state that has legalized marijuana, does a state officer have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle based on the smell of marijuana alone, because marijuana is still prohibited under federal law? This Article is the first to consider that unsettled question. Over the last ten years, almost every state has altered the legality of marijuana in some way, either through decriminalization or legalization. Yet the possession, use, and cultivation of marijuana continue to be illegal at the federal level. Prior to these reforms, state courts generally upheld warrantless searches of vehicles based on nothing …

By Fair Means: The Inapplicability Of Bristol-Myers Squibb To Flsa Collective Action Lawsuits, Paige Maxa

Washington Law Review

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed by Congress in 1938, sets federal workplace standards and protects over 100 million workers in the United States. The FLSA also includes a collective action provision, which allows workers to privately sue their employers for FLSA violations in a unique way. A collective action lawsuit is a distinct form of aggregate litigation that allows an employee to sue their employer for FLSA violations on behalf of other similarly situated employees in one action. Similarly situated employees who wish to join a collective action must affirmatively opt in and consent to participate in the …

Washington's Implementation Of Legalized Cannabis: A Model For Other States And The Federal Government, Bruce Turcott, Daniel Shortt

Washington Law Review

This Article examines the process and outcomes of cannabis legalization in Washington State, offering insights for other states and potential federal legalization schemes. It begins with an overview of the campaign that led to the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502), detailing the initiative’s structure, which draws from liquor licensing laws. The Article then explores the establishment of a recreational cannabis market from scratch, focusing on agency structure, federal responses such as the Cole Memorandum, and the state’s regulatory framework aimed at preventing adverse outcomes.

Additionally, this Article highlights Washington’s efforts to promote social equity, emphasizing that I-502 was framed as …

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

Fugitive Pull: Applying The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine To Foreign Defendants, Zachary Z. Schroeder

Washington Law Review

Defendants force courts to decide whether to use judicial time and resources to hear a case when they either flee or refuse to submit to jurisdiction. Judges in the United States possess an exceptional discretionary power to deny access to the courts in these circumstances through the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine developed as federal common law and permits courts to exercise discretion in declining to hear appeals or motions from defendants classified as fugitives from justice.

Historically, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was intended to prevent courts from wasting resources adjudicating cases when a defendant has fled and …

Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi

Washington Law Review

Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …

Race And Washington’S Criminal Justice System: 2021 Report To The Washington Supreme Court, Task Force 2.0

Washington Law Review

RACE & WASHINGTON’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

EDITOR’S NOTE

As Editors-in-Chief of the Washington Law Review, Gonzaga Law Review, and Seattle University Law Review, we represent the flagship legal academic publications of each law school in Washington State. Our publications last joined together to publish the findings of the first Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System in 2011/12. A decade later, we are honored to join once again to present the findings of Task Force 2.0. Law journals have enabled generations of legal professionals to introduce, vet, and distribute new ideas, critiques of existing legal structures, and reflections …

Autonomous Corporate Personhood, Carla L. Reyes

Washington Law Review

Several states have recently changed their business organization law to accommodate autonomous businesses—businesses operated entirely through computer code. A variety of international civil society groups are also actively developing new frameworks— and a model law—for enabling decentralized, autonomous businesses to achieve a corporate or corporate-like status that bestows legal personhood. Meanwhile, various jurisdictions, including the European Union, have considered whether and to what extent artificial intelligence (AI) more broadly should be endowed with personhood to respond to AI’s increasing presence in society. Despite the fairly obvious overlap between the two sets of inquiries, the legal and policy discussions between the …

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

The Canons Of Construction For Choice-Of-Law Clauses, John F. Coyle

Washington Law Review

Over the past half-century, courts in the United States have developed canons of construction that they use exclusively to construe choice-of-law clauses. These canons are consistently applied by state and federal courts. They play an important role in determining the meaning of choice-of-law clauses and, by extension, the law that will be applied to resolve disputes that come before the courts. To date, however, these canons have attracted relatively little attention in the academic literature. This Article aspires to fill that gap. It develops the first taxonomy of these canons, which fall into one of two families. The first consists …

Judicial Lobbying, J. Jonas Anderson

Washington Law Review

Judges who lobby Congress for legal reform tread into an ethical gray area: lobbying is legally permissible, but generally frowned upon. Currently, there are no legal or ethical constraints on judges speaking publicly regarding proposed legislative changes, only an ill-defined norm against the practice. Scholars have largely dismissed judicial lobbying efforts as the result of haphazard, one-off events, driven by the unique interests, expertise, or ideology of the individual judge involved. According to scholars, there is nothing that should be done—not to mention little that could be done—to restrict judges from lobbying. Judicial lobbying occurs, in large part, when Congress …

Judicial Lobbying, J. Jonas Anderson

Washington Law Review

Judges who lobby Congress for legal reform tread into an ethical gray area: lobbying is legally permissible, but generally frowned upon. Currently, there are no legal or ethical constraints on judges speaking publicly regarding proposed legislative changes, only an ill-defined norm against the practice. Scholars have largely dismissed judicial lobbying efforts as the result of haphazard, one-off events, driven by the unique interests, expertise, or ideology of the individual judge involved. According to scholars, there is nothing that should be done—not to mention little that could be done—to restrict judges from lobbying. Judicial lobbying occurs, in large part, when Congress …

Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt

Washington Law Review

The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …

Revisiting Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Klerman, Dustin E. Buehler

Washington Law Review Online

My recent article https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss3/2/">Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost examines issues implicated by nonwaivable federal court subject-matter jurisdiction. I argue that courts and commentators are prone to monistic theories of jurisdictional value, failing to consider the full range of interests implicated by jurisdictional rules. I then catalogue the various interests arising from jurisdictional rules. Lastly, I advance several solutions, including early jurisdictional certification orders, a cut-off point for jurisdictional challenges, interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional rulings, and sanctions to deter private-party abuse. Daniel Klerman’s response to my article is articulate, well-reasoned, and persuasive. Among other contentions, he suggests that mandatory jurisdictional …

Brief For Respondent. United States V. Wong, 134 S.Ct. 2873 (2014) (No. 13-1074), 2014 Wl 5804278, Eric Schnapper, Tom Steenson, Beth Creighton, Michael Rose

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Is the six-month limit on filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), jurisdictional?

2. If the six-month limit for filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), is not jurisdictional, is it subject to equitable tolling?

Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost, Dustin E. Buehler

Washington Law Review

Federal court subject-matter jurisdiction rules incur a significant social cost—when jurisdiction is found lacking, courts must dismiss, no matter how many years and resources the parties have spent on the case. Indeed, hundreds of belated jurisdictional dismissals occur each year after parties have already engaged in discovery, dispositive motions, or even trial. Federal judges tolerate this waste largely because they view nonwaivable jurisdictional rules as a function of structural values rooted in the Constitution, rather than efficiency concerns. In contrast, scholars tend to focus primarily on efficiency arguments while discussing jurisdictional nonwaivability, de-emphasizing important structural interests. Both theories are overly …

Gully And The Failure To Stake A 28 U.S.C. § 1331 "Claim", Lumen N. Mulligan

Washington Law Review

In this piece, I argue that a return to Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian as an approach to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is ill-conceived. In a recent thoughtful article, Professor Simona Grossi draws heavily upon the traditions of the legal process school’s approach to federal courts jurisprudence to support just such a resurrection of Gully as the lodestar for § 1331 doctrine. While embracing a return to the legal process school, I argue first that the Gully view—read as a call for judges simply to select sufficiently important matters, in relation to plaintiff’s case in chief, for …

The Claim-Centered Approach To Arising-Under Jurisdiction: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Mulligan, Simona Grossi

Washington Law Review

My claim-centered approach to arising-under jurisdiction fully embraces the three subcategories of jurisdiction that Professor Mulligan identifies. My essential point is that the bifurcation (or trifurcation as Professor Mulligan suggests) into separate doctrines has led to a mechanical jurisprudence that is sometimes inconsistent with the fundamental principles that ought to animate § 1331 jurisdictional analysis. In my view, Gully v. First National Bank illuminates those fundamental principles by focusing on the role of the federal issue in the case before the court. That does not mean that Gully provides an easy answer for all applications of arising-under jurisdiction; it does …

The Claim-Centered Approach To Arising-Under Jurisdiction: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Mulligan, Simona Grossi

Washington Law Review

My claim-centered approach to arising-under jurisdiction fully embraces the three subcategories of jurisdiction that Professor Mulligan identifies. My essential point is that the bifurcation (or trifurcation as Professor Mulligan suggests) into separate doctrines has led to a mechanical jurisprudence that is sometimes inconsistent with the fundamental principles that ought to animate § 1331 jurisdictional analysis. In my view, Gully v. First National Bank illuminates those fundamental principles by focusing on the role of the federal issue in the case before the court. That does not mean that Gully provides an easy answer for all applications of arising-under jurisdiction; it does …

Gully And The Failure To Stake A 28 U.S.C. § 1331 "Claim", Lumen N. Mulligan

Washington Law Review

In this piece, I argue that a return to Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian as an approach to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is ill-conceived. In a recent thoughtful article, Professor Simona Grossi draws heavily upon the traditions of the legal process school’s approach to federal courts jurisprudence to support just such a resurrection of Gully as the lodestar for § 1331 doctrine. While embracing a return to the legal process school, I argue first that the Gully view—read as a call for judges simply to select sufficiently important matters, in relation to plaintiff’s case in chief, for …

An Economic Analysis Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Waiver: A Response To Professor Buehler, Daniel Klerman

Washington Law Review Online

This article is a response to Dustin E. Buehler, Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost, 89 Wash. L. Rev. 653 (2014).

Distinct Sources Of Law And Distinct Doctrines: Federal Jurisdiction And Prudential Standing, William James Goodling

Washington Law Review

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is limited by subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and, to an uncertain extent, standing. While it is well established that Article III standing is jurisdictional, the federal circuit courts are divided on whether judge-made prudential standing is jurisdictional, and the Supreme Court has not directly weighed in. The jurisdictional status of a doctrine has two important procedural consequences. First, litigants cannot forfeit a defense for lack of jurisdiction, meaning that such a defense can be raised for the first time on appeal. Second, federal courts have a sua sponte obligation to ensure …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Washington Law Review

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories—“Indian country.” The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories-"Indian country." The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Kloeckner V. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012) (No. 11-184), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2894, Eric Schnapper, Larry J. Stein, Antony J. Franze, R. Reeves Anderson, R. Stanton Jones

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

The Territory Federal Jurisdiction Forgot: The Question Of Greater Federal Jurisdiction In American Samoa, Michael W. Weaver

Washington International Law Journal

The United States Territory of American Samoa is over 7000 miles from Washington, D.C., and that distance might explain the United States’ limited interest in the territory. The lack of interest has allowed American Samoa to maintain its unique cultural foundations. However, it has also kept American Samoa detached from the federal governmental structure, including the judicial system. In fact, a federal district court does not exist in American Samoa, nor has the territory been incorporated into a federal judicial district. A lack of a federal presence has not been a major issue until recently. In the last few years, …

Justice Scalia’S “Renegade Jurisdiction”: Lessons For Patent Law Reform, Xuan-Thao Nguyen

Articles

Justice Scalia called the Eastern District of Texas ("EDTX") the "renegade jurisdiction." Critics label it the "rocket-docket" for patents. All blame it on the ills of patent litigation, demanding for national reform. This Article challenges the prevailing myths with an empirical quantitative study of more than 27,000 patent cases filed in the last decade and a qualitative study on patent forum shopping. This Article contends that the proposed venue reforms will not prevent litigants from shopping for a favorable forum in which to resolve patent litigations. This Article suggests that instead of the quick fixes vis-à-vis proposed venue reform legislation …

The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Some Foreign State Instrumentalities Must Be Consistent With Due Process, Gosia Spangenberg

Washington Law Review

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause places limitations on courts' judicial power. Due process concerns arise when a forum exercises personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant for actions carried on outside the forum's territory. Those concerns are alleviated when the defendant has adequate "minimum contacts" with the forum. Although foreign states are presumed to be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over foreign states under certain circumstances. Several FSIA exceptions to foreign state immunity extend to conduct that occurs outside of the U.S. Moreover, the jurisdictional nexus requirements associated …

American-Style Justice In No Man's Land, Peter Nicolas

Articles

This Article seeks to fill the gap in the existing literature by exploring the constitutional limits on federal court subject matter jurisdiction in the context of civil disputes arising in Indian Country and civil disputes arising elsewhere involving Indian tribes, tribal entities, and tribal members.

Part II of this Article catalogues the universe of "no forum" and "biased forum" jurisdictional quagmires with respect to civil disputes arising in Indian Country or those arising elsewhere involving Indian tribes, tribal entities, and tribal members, examining the existing legal obstacles that prevent federal, state, and tribal courts from exercising jurisdiction over the "no …

The Elusive Exercise Of Jurisdiction Over Air Transportation Between The United States And South Korea, Dana L. Christensen

Washington International Law Journal

Contrary to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, the federal courts should be permitted to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the international transportation of goods by air between South Korea and the United States. Applying general principles of treaty interpretation under customary international law confirms that treaty relations under the Warsaw Convention exist between the two countries by way of the United States' adherence to that treaty, and South Korea's adherence to the Hague Protocol. Since federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under U.S. …