Jurisdiction Commons^™

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 …

Towards The Faa's Next Century: Clarifying Disclosure Requirements In Arbitration, Andrea K. Schneider, Brian Farkas

Articles

This essay provides a roadmap to the current landscape of neutrality and disclosure. It then suggests three possible reforms to the FAA that would provide better guidance to arbitrators, parties, and courts. Moreover, this essay argues that if the FAA cannot be sufficiently amended, states should take the lead. States can continue to more clearly outline disclosure requirements and enforce clearer standards than the current version of the FAA.

Winding Authority: Consent By Registration And The Legal Singularity, Christina Frohock

Articles

More than forty years ago, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a uniquely broad and explicit statute directed at out-of-state corporations: registration as a foreign corporation constitutes consent to general personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania's consent-by-registration statute has faced Fourteenth Amendment due process challenges in state and federal courts alike, rising all the way to both the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Supreme Court. This Article first tracks the myriad challenges to the Pennsylvania statute, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. in 2023. The Article then argues that the statute's zigzagging …

Shareholder Primacy Versus Shareholder Accountability, William Wilson Bratton

Articles

When corporations inflict injuries in the course of business, shareholders wielding environmental, social, and governance ("ESG") principles can, and now sometimes do, intervene to correct the matter. In the emerging fact pattern, corporate social accountability expands out of its historic collectivized frame to become an internal subject matter-a corporate governance topic. As a result, shareholder accountability surfaces as a policy question for the first time. The Big Three index fund managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, responded to the accountability question with ESG activism. In so doing, they defected against corporate legal theory's central tenet, shareholder primacy. Shareholder primacy builds …

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 Future Of Anti-Poverty Legislation, Andrew Hammond, Ariel Jurow Kleiman, Gabriel Scheffler

Articles

The era of big-government COVID relief is over. The initial pandemic relief legislation, followed by two years of Democratic control in Washington, seemed to herald the expansion and modernization of the U.S. safety net. But sustained reform proved elusive. Now that this window of opportunity has closed, it's time to step back and take stock. For those who focus on anti-poverty programs, one question persists: The next time there is such an opportunity to strengthen anti-poverty programs through legislation, how should federal law change?

This Article suggests the answer to that question lies in lessons from recent experience, including, but …

Is "Public Company" Still A Viable Regulatory Category?, George S. Georgiev

Articles

This Article suggests that the ubiquitous "public company" regulatory category, as currently constructed, has outlived its effectiveness in fulfilling core goals of the modern administrative state. An ever-expanding array of federal economic regulation hinges on public company status, but "public company" differs from most other regulatory categories in that it requires an affirmative opt-in by the subject entity. In practice, firms today become subject to public company regulation only if they need access to the public capital markets, which is much less of a business imperative than it once was due to the proliferation of private financing options. Paradoxically, then, …

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.

Beyond Bristol-Myers: Personal Jurisdiction Over Class Actions, Adam Steinman

Articles

The Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court threatens a sea change in the relationship between personal jurisdiction and aggregate litigation. The most crucial concern has been what the decision means for class actions. Must a court subject the claims of every unnamed class member to separate jurisdictional scrutiny? If so, it could be impossible for a plaintiff who sues in her home state to represent class members outside that state; instead, the Constitution would permit multistate or nationwide class actions only in states where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction. For claims against 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 …

From The Frying Pan To The Fire: Scotus’ Fsia Inaction As Further Permitting Executive Branch Intervention In “Takings Exception” Cases And Its Consequences In Forcing Holocaust Plaintiffs To Return To Europe, Richard H. Weisberg

Articles

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) very recently punted and left wide a circuit split on a key question under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”): Do plaintiff Holocaust victims need to return to the country that wronged them in order to proceed in a United States federal court that otherwise had jurisdiction over their claims? While sending down unresolved a conflict between the D.C. and Seventh Circuits, in a companion case also involving Holocaust victims, SCOTUS essentially ended an action against Germany by taking the strong suggestion of the Executive Branch through its Solicitor General that a …

Counterterrorism 2.0, Deborah Pearlstein

Articles

Are there any lessons to be gleaned for combatting the rising threat of white nationalist terrorism today from the U.S. response to the attacks of 9/11 twenty years on? This symposium reflection suggests that among the most important lessons may be in avoiding the conceptually defining characteristics of the early U.S. response in 2001. Detainee torture and abuse, the embrace of trial by newly formed military commission, and other misguided policies and practices whose effects are still felt today were set in motion in the first few weeks after the attacks, driven by the instinct to do something, bolstered by …

A Knock On Knick'S Revival Of Federal Takings Litigation, Stewart Sterk, Michael C. Pollack

Articles

In Knick v. Township of Scott, the United States Supreme Court held that a landowner who claimed to have suffered a taking at the hands of state or local officials could seek redress in federal court without the need to first seek compensation through state proceedings. This holding raises serious theoretical and practical concerns. On the theoretical side, Knick rests on the implicit assumption that states separate powers among branches of government in the same way the federal government does. It also relies on a second assumption: that relegating taking claims to state court makes them unique. Neither is …

Academic And Practitioner Perspectives On The Ilc Draft Articles On Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Humanity As Adopted On Second Reading, Charles C. Jalloh, Leila N. Sadat

Articles

No abstract provided.

Erie Doctrine, State Law, And Civil Rights Litigation, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

How should state law questions and claims be resolved when they arise in federal civil rights litigation? In prior work, I have criticized the given wisdom that the Erie doctrine, while originating in diversity cases, applies in all cases whatever the basis for federal jurisdiction. In that work, I proposed a framework, “Erie Step Zero,” to place Erie questions in their jurisdictional context. As I have argued, the concern with forum shopping and unequal treatment that prompted Erie have less salience in federal question cases. Different concerns emerge when one focuses on the presence of state law issues in …

Forgotten Statutes: Trade Law's Domestic (Re)Turn, Kathleen Claussen

Articles

Since the first half of the twentieth century, the U.S. Congress has increasingly delegated its authority over tariffs to the U.S. president. Some of these statutes permit private actors to petition for tariff relief. Some also permit the president to initiate an investigation and subsequently to take trade-related or other action when certain criteria are met. Since the 1990s, however, a robust multilateral trading system has required the United States and others to resolve disputes over trade measures in Geneva, rather than through unilateral policy steps under these tariff authorities. In a stark departure from this movement away from unilateral …

A Proposal For The International Law Commission To Study Universal Criminal Jurisdiction, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

The principle of universal jurisdiction is a unique ground of jurisdiction in international law that may permit a State to exercise national jurisdiction over certain crimes in the interest of the international community. This means that a State may exercise jurisdiction regarding a crime committed by a foreign national against another foreign national outside its territory. Such jurisdiction differs markedly from the traditional bases of jurisdiction under international law, which typically require some type of territorial, nationality or other connection between the State exercising the jurisdiction and the conduct at issue. Due to the definitional and other ambiguities surrounding the …

The Nature Of The Crimes In The African Criminal Court, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

This article examines the distinction between 'international' and 'transnational' crimes in contemporary international legal literature. It considers this traditional division through the lens of the African Union (AU) s Malabo Protocol, adopted in June 2014, which seeks to establish the first regional penal court with material jurisdiction over 14 crimes. The author argues that, while the international/transnational crimes distinction may be analytically convenient for scholars, the codification of both types of prohibitions into a regional treaty illustrates that some states are less concerned about adherence to crime categories and more interested in proscribing whatever conduct pose threats to their peace …

Erisa Preemption After Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual: Completing The Retrenchment Of Shaw, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent preemption decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In Gobeille, the Court completed the process of reconciling the restrained approach to ERISA preemption announced in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. with the Court’s literal and expansive approach adopted earlier in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Gobeille consummated this reconciliation by confirming the sub silentio retrenchment of Shaw and its “plain language” approach in favor of Traveler’s broader construction of ERISA preemption. …

Defining Residence For Income Tax Purposes: Domicile As Gap-Filler, Citizenship As Proxy And Gap-Filler, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

The states' income tax systems are important repositories of experience which confirm the administrative benefits of citizenship-based taxation. Domicile today plays an important role in state tax systems as a gap-filler when more objective statutory residence laws fail to assign any state of residence to the taxpayer. Citizenship is an administrable proxy for domicile and serves a similar gap-filling role in the federal taxation of individuals whose income and activities straddle across national boundaries.

The states' difficulties enforcing domicile-based taxation highlight the administrative benefits of citizenship-based taxation. As long as residence is understood for tax purposes in terms of domicile, …

How Privacy Distorted Standing Law, Felix T. Wu

Articles

No abstract provided.

Closing Impunity Gaps For The Crime Of Aggression, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

Articles

As stated at Nuremberg, the crime of aggression is the “supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” International instruments clearly and repeatedly have outlawed initiating wars of aggression and other illegal uses of armed force. States parties recently have defined and codified the crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and delineated the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression. Although the ICC is an important mechanism for accountability and justice, it is not certain when it will be able to adjudicate …

The Day Doctrine Died: Private Arbitration And The End Of Law, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

This story begins in 1980, when a budding anti-lawsuit movement found an energetic champion in a new conservative President. Over time, the movement became a dominant feature of political life, as its narrative of activist judges, jackpot justice, and a thriving lawsuit industry stirred partisan passions. And yet, some thirty years on, it is clear that the primary legacy of the anti-lawsuit movement is the movement itself--not legislative achievements, which have been few and far between, but committed adherents, including future Supreme Court Justices, lower court judges, and business leaders.

Meanwhile, and also in the early 1980s, federal courts began …

The Role Of Non-Governmental Organizations In Advancing International Criminal Justice, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

This article examines the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in advancing international criminal justice. I argue that NGOs have had considerable impact by contributing, among other things, to the global struggle against impunity through advocacy for the creation of more robust institutional mechanisms to prosecute those who perpetrate such crimes. This ranges from supporting the processes that led to the creation of several ad hoc international tribunals for Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, all the way through to their support for the establishment of an independent permanent international penal court based in The Hague. The crux of my claim is …

Goveille V. Liberty Mutual: An Opportunity To Correct The Problems Of Erisa Preemption, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Articles

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

The Jurisprudence Of Union, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does important, independent work in the law of vertical federalism. We have long been accustomed to treating union as a constitutionally operative value in cases involving the duties states owe one another (i.e. horizontal federalism cases), but in cases involving the relationship between the federal government and the states, the interest in union is routinely ignored. This Article shows that, across a wide range of cases relating to the allocation of power between the federal government and the states, the states are constrained by a …