Jurisdiction Commons^™

Power For The People: Recognizing The Constitutional Right To Vote For President, Charlie Martel

Cardozo Law Review

On January 6, 2021, a mob attacked the United States Capitol to overthrow the certification of the legitimately elected president and install the election loser, Donald Trump. Before this, there was another coup attempt. Trump and his team pressured state legislators and officials not to certify legitimately elected presidential electors, and to instead certify fake electors for Trump. This was based on the theory that the Constitution grants states “plenary power” to select presidential electors, even if this means cancelling citizen elections or rejecting their outcome. The coups failed—this time.

There should be no next time. The Supreme Court should …

Horizontal Federalism & The Big State "Problem", Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

California regulates pork; does it offend the Constitution that pork producers in other states must comply with its regulations if they want to sell Californians pork? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the Supreme Court emerged sharply divided in its approach to the practical extraterritorial spillover effect of the in-state regulations of a tantalizing market. Although a fractured majority of the Court upheld California’s Proposition 12 against a dormant Commerce Clause challenge, at least five Justices registered profound discomfort, with one dissenter expressly inviting consideration of the problem through the lens of other clauses. This Article analyzes “the …

The Court And The Private Plaintiff, Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Two seemingly irreconcilable story arcs have emerged from the Supreme Court over the past decade. First, the Court has definitively taken itself out of the business of creating private rights of action under statutes and the Constitution, decrying such moves as relics of an “ancient regime.” Thus, the Supreme Court has slammed the door on its own ability to craft rights of action under federal statutes and put Bivens, which recognized implied constitutional remedies, into an ever-smaller box. The Court has justified these moves as necessary to keep judges from overstepping their bounds and wading into the province of the …

Airdropping Justice: The Constitutionality Of Service Of Process Via Non-Fungible Token, Jenifer Jackson

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Muskrat Textualism, Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court decision McGirt v. Oklahoma, confirming the boundaries of the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma, was a truly rare case in which the Court turned back arguments by federal and state governments in favor of American Indian and tribal interests. For more than a century, Oklahomans had assumed that the reservation had been terminated and acted accordingly. But only Congress can terminate an Indian reservation, and it simply had never done so in the case of the Creek Reservation. Both the majority and dissenting opinions attempted to claim the mantle of textualism, but their respective analyses led to …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Madison 2.0—Applying The Constitution’S Taxing And Spending Clause To Revitalize American Federalism, Mohamed Akram Faizer

Seattle University Law Review

This article introduces the proposal entitled Madison 2.0 which calls for an enlightened federal government to enact legislation—using its broad ability to tax and spend for the general welfare—to revitalize, as opposed to undermine, American federalism. Part I discusses American Federalism today and the need for an updated approach. Part II explores the government's dysfunctional response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Part III proposes how to revitalize American federalism through the Spending Clause. Part IV discusses how to claw back funds in situations of state recalcitrance and replacing funds with a basic income. Lastly, this article concludes by explaining why the …

Legalizing Undocumented Work, Jennifer J. Lee

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drones: Where Does The National Airspace System Start?, Jason T. Lorenzon J.D.

National Training Aircraft Symposium (NTAS)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Aeronautical Vehicles (UAV), drones and Personal Aerial Vehicles (PAV) constitute the greatest technological advancement since the jet age. (Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation, October 26, 2017) This technological advancement has prompted significant public policy challenges and the need for new laws regarding navigable airspace. This proposal investigates how airspace used by drones will evolve given existing Constitutional and common law principals. These principals will influence the creation, development and modification of UAS airspace regulations by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Two critical but unanswered questions concerning the National Airspace System, are where does navigable airspace …

Black Women And Girls And The Twenty-Sixth Amendment: Constitutional Connections, Activist Intersections, And The First Wave Youth Suffrage Movement, Mae C. Quinn

Seattle University Law Review

On this 100th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment—and on the cusp of the fiftieth anniversary of the Twenty-sixth Amendment—this article seeks to expand the voting rights canon. It complicates our understanding of voting rights history in the United States, adding layers to the history of federal constitutional enfranchisement and encouraging a more intersectional telling of our suffrage story in the days ahead.

Thus, this work not only seeks to acknowledge the Twenty-sixth Amendment as important constitutional content, as was the goal of the article I wrote with my law student colleagues for a conference held at the University of Akron …

First Principles For Forum Provisions, Daniel B. Listwa, Bradley J. Polivka

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

In this Essay, the authors argue that the Delaware Chancery Court's opinion in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, which appeals to territoriality as a decisive “first principle,” is deeply misguided. The notion that each state’s legislative jurisdiction is bounded by its territorial limits is a formalist and arbitrary notion that has been broadly rejected by various jurisdictions, including Delaware. Moreover, an opinion truly grounded in “first principles” would take comity—the basic framework for choice of law in the early Republic—as its lodestar, necessitating a functionally and strategically sensitive approach to determining the validity of the federal forum provisions. In this case, comity …

A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …

Political Question Disconnects, Elizabeth Earle Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Signed, Sealed, Delivered, And ?: The Correlation Between Policy Areas, Signing, And Legal Ratification Of Organization Of American States’ Treaties By Member States., Alexandra R. Harrington

ExpressO

Abstract: Signed, Sealed, Delivered, and ?: The Correlation Between Policy areas, Signing, and Legal Ratification of Organization of American States’ Treaties by Member States.

Like any organization, the Organization of American States’ ability to affect lasting policy changes through treaties is only as strong as the will of the federal legislative bodies of its member states. No matter how lofty or well-meaning the OAS’s goals in any area or matter addressed by a treaty, or the number of OAS member states which sign onto a treaty reflecting these goals, under the OAS Charter, and the federal constitutions of most member …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

The Application Of Federal Common Law To Overcome Conflicting State Laws In The Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings Of An Sec Appointed Receiver, Gauhar Naseem

ExpressO

In spite of the Erie doctrine, the application of federal common law has survived to overcome conflicting state laws in diversity actions where a federal law, interest or function is implicated. A federal court’s authority to substantively implement a federal common law rule over state law is clearest when the party to the action is a federal entity, namely an agency of the U.S. Government deriving its authority from the Constitution or some source of federal law. Analyzing such authority becomes more difficult in circumstances where parties to a diversity lawsuit are private citizens (not necessarily possessing any direct federal …

When Worlds Collide: Federal Construction Of State Institutional Competence, Marcia L. Mccormick

ExpressO

The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already analyzed the law at issue, either in a separate case or in the very situation before the federal court. In every one of those cases, the federal courts must decide whether to defer to the state court analysis and, if so, how much. The federal courts will often defer, but many times have not done so, and they rarely explain the reasons for the departures they make. While this lack of transparency gives the federal courts the greatest amount of discretion and power, it …

Certifying Questions To Congress, Amanda Frost

ExpressO

As many academics and some judges have openly admitted, no technique of statutory interpretation can settle every question of statutory ambiguity. Sometimes Congress enacts legislation containing gaps or inconsistencies that cannot be resolved through the application of a canon of construction or other interpretive rule. This article proposes an alternative approach for these hard cases. When a federal court is faced with a statute that leaves important issues about its application unclear – particularly issues that implicate the statute’s constitutionality – the court could stay the case and refer the question to Congress, much in the same way that courts …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: An Empirical Investigation Of Ideology And Publication On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, David S. Law

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

Previous studies have demonstrated that, in a number of contexts, federal appeals court judges divide along ideological lines when deciding cases upon the merits. To date, however, researchers have failed to find evidence that circuit judges take advantage of selective publication rules to further their ideological preferences - for example, by voting more ideologically in published cases that have precedential effect than in unpublished cases that lack binding effect upon future panels. This article evaluates the possibility that judges engage in strategic judicial lawmaking by voting more ideologically in published cases than in unpublished cases. To test this hypothesis, all …

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …

Another Limit On Federal Court Jurisdiction? Immigrant Access To Class-Wide Injunctive Relief, Jill E. Family

ExpressO

This article examines a statute that may embody another limit on the power of the federal courts. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) implemented sweeping changes that substantially restrict federal court review of administrative immigration decisions. One provision implemented as a part of IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), appears, at least at first glance, to prohibit courts from issuing class-wide injunctive relief in immigration cases. Such a restriction would be significant because federal courts have issued class-wide injunctions in the past to stop unconstitutional immigration practices and policies of the federal government. The Supreme Court …

The Evolution Of Sherman Act Jurisdiction: A Roadmap For Competitive Federalism, D. Bruce Johnsen

ExpressO

Recent Supreme Court decisions confirm for the first time in over six decades that federal regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause truly is limited. These decisions coincide with an increasing appreciation among scholars and jurists for the concept of competitive federalism. This paper derives the implications of competitive federalism for the evolution of federal jurisdiction over trade restraints under the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). It provides a clear and substantively reasoned jurisdictional test based on the analysis of geographic market power familiar to antitrust scholars, practitioners, and regulators in evaluating horizontal mergers. To be subject to federal antitrust jurisdiction under …

Why Federalism Must Be Enforced: A Response To Professor Kramer, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

The United States Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that turn on the Constitution's inherent principles of federalism, decisions that have alarmed many a legal scholar. Some scholars have attacked the Court for overstepping its bounds, and others have criticized the Court on the ground that the federal/state balance should be maintained through the political process rather than judicial review. The most recent advocate of this position, Professor Larry Kramer, recently argued in the Columbia Law Review that the political party structure ensures that state interests are taken into account at the federal level, and therefore the Supreme …

The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Equitable Remedies And Other Types Of Non-Money Judgments In United States And French Courts: A Comparative Analysis, Noele Sophie Rigot

LLM Theses and Essays

Courts of industrialized nations are often faced with adjudication of cases which involve foreign components. It is common for those courts to be asked by individuals or legal entities from a transnational environment to adjudicate with regard to some elements already adjudged in a different legal system as if it were a local judgment. The question that arises is how effects should be given when dealing with prior adjudications. Most countries agree to recognize some effects determined by foreign jurisdictions, as long as those determinations meet standards that guarantee proper integration of the foreign decision into the domestic setting. These …

A Critical Reassessment Of The Case Law Bearing On Congress's Power To Restrict The Jurisdiction Of The Lower Federal Courts, Gordon G. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.