Jurisdiction Commons^™

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

The Pressure Points Of Professional Identity For Judges In The Modern Era, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The duties core to the professional identity of a judge are encapsulated in an ethical directive at the literal forefront of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, some variation of which all state and federal judiciaries have adopted. Rule 1.2 provides that “[a] judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary[.]” This directive implicates three challenges, or pressure points, relevant to a judge’s identity: 1) insofar as judges begin their legal careers as practicing lawyers, when they ascend the bench their professional identities must transition from …

Legislative Reforms To End Lawfare By State And Local Prosecutors, Elizabeth Beske

Legislative Testimony & Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. ET. The hearing, "Legislative Reforms to End Lawfare by State and Local Prosecutors," will examine the use of lawfare tactics by the Biden-Harris Administration to weaponize the rule of law against political opponents. It will further highlight legislative reforms to end politically motivated state and local prosecutions.

Erie And Enforceability Of Forum Selection Clauses, Patrick Woolley

American University Law Review

Whether and to what extent state law governs the contractual validity of forum selection clauses in federal court remains highly contested. This Article argues for a two-part answer.

State law should govern whenever a party seeks a § 1404(a) transfer of venue within the federal judicial system. The Court has insisted that the choice-of-law rules of the state to which the suit is transferred govern when transfer is required by a contractually valid clause. That insistence accords with the Erie policy of vertical uniformity between state and federal courts only if the law of the state in which the transferring …

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, …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy

The United States bureaucracy began as only four departments and has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these bureaucratic agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founding Fathers’ design of balancing legislative power in a bicameral Congress.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of executive agencies, yet the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted voters’ voices. Since the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense …

Jefferson's Ghost: The Local Action Rule In Federal Courts, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

Cardozo Law Review

The local action rule required that certain actions concerning real property be adjudicated in the federal court in the state (and perhaps the district) containing the property. This rule had been apart of the law of the United States since the early days of the nation. In 2011, Congress eliminated the local action rule as a matter of venue. But some courts have held that the local action rule pertains to subject matter jurisdiction, not merely venue, and that it survived Congress's elimination of the venue aspect of the rule. This is wrong as to cases in federal court involving …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Although only four departments at the United States’ founding, the American bureaucracy has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight through monetary allowance and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founders’ design of legislative power vested solely in a bicameral legislature.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of bureaucratic agencies. However, despite their obligation to protect the rights of the American people, the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted …

The Federal Circuit: A Microcosm Of Changes In The Legal Landscape, Jimmie V. Reyna

American University Law Review

On April 2, 1982, Congress established the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit through the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals with the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. The Federal Circuit has just surpassed forty years of appellate jurisprudence.

The Purcell Principle And The Antiblackness Of Constitutional Fundamentalism, Brittany Carter

American University Law Review

In Milligan v. Merrill, a district court in Alabama found that the state legislature designed Alabama’s new congressional district map in a way that diminished Black political power, and ordered the legislature to redraw its map to remedy the violation. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order, allowing Alabama’s congressional elections to proceed under the discriminatory maps. The only stated rationale, offered by Justices Kavanaugh and Alito in a concurring opinion, was the so-called Purcell principle – the notion that federal courts should not enjoin a state’s election laws in the period close to an election. …

The Judicial Activism Of Justice Anthony Kennedy, Carlos A. Ball

American University Law Review

Few recent Supreme Court justices have had a greater impact on constitutional law than Anthony Kennedy. Although commentators have explored the substance of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence in some detail, legal scholars have not systematically analyzed the extent of his judicial activism. This Article uses the term “judicial activism” descriptively rather than normatively to help account for a judge’s willingness to strike down federal, state, and local laws on constitutional grounds. It finds that, under a descriptive definition, when compared to the justices with whom he served, Justice Kennedy was a singularly judicial activist judge.

This conclusion rests on three findings. …

A Synthesis Of The Science And Law Relating To Eyewitness Misidentifications And Recommendations For How Police And Courts Can Reduce Wrongful Convictions Based On Them, Henry F. Fradella

Seattle University Law Review

The empirical literature on perception and memory consistently demonstrates the pitfalls of eyewitness identifications. Exoneration data lend external validity to these studies. With the goal of informing law enforcement officers, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and judicial law clerks about what they can do to reduce wrongful convictions based on misidentifications, this Article presents a synthesis of the scientific knowledge relevant to how perception and memory affect the (un)reliability of eyewitness identifications. The Article situates that body of knowledge within the context of leading case law. The Article then summarizes the most current recommendations for how law enforcement personnel should—and …

Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger

The Cardinal Edge

No abstract provided.

The War In Ukraine And The Legitimacy Of The International Criminal Court, Yvonne Dutton, Milena Sterio

American University Law Review

The news of the many atrocities being committed as the war in Ukraine rages on has prompted a chorus of calls seeking to hold perpetrators accountable. Heralded as a critical player is the International Criminal Court (the ICC or “Court”). Unlike in the past where states have decried requests to increase the Court’s budget or refused to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor’s (“OTP”) efforts to gather evidence or arrest suspects, states are generously donating funding and other resources to bolster the Court’s likelihood of bringing successful prosecutions.

This Article argues that the unique situation surrounding state support for …

Exhausting Comity-Based Abstention In The Fsia’S Expropriation Exception, Avi Rosskamm

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vertical Stare Decisis And Three-Judge District Courts, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Three-judge federal district courts have jurisdiction over many issues central to our democratic system, including constitutional challenges to congressional and legislative districts, as well as to certain federal campaign-finance statutes. They are similarly responsible for enforcing key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Litigants often have the right to appeal their rulings directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of this unusual appellate process, courts and commentators disagree on whether such three-judge district court panels are bound by circuit precedent or instead are free to adjudicate these critical issues constrained only by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The applicability of court …

Reign Of Error: District Courts Misreading The Supreme Court Over Rooker–Feldman Analysis, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Edward L. Baskauskas

Faculty Scholarship

Seventeen decisions in nine U.S. district courts from 2006 through 2019 have taken a demonstrably misgrounded starting point for Rooker–Feldman analysis. The cases have read language from a 2006 Supreme Court opinion, in which the Court quoted criteria stated by the lower court, as their guideline. But the Court summarily vacated the lower court’s judgment, and it had previously articulated, and has repeated, different criteria for federal courts to follow. The district-court decisions all appear to have reached correct results, but the mistake about criteria should be recognized and avoided as soon as possible before it creates potential mischief. And …

Keeping Faith With Nomos, Steven L. Winter

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sticks, Stones, And So-Called Judges: Why The Era Of Trump Necessitates Revisiting Presidential Influence On The Courts, Quinn W. Crowley

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will be primarily divided into three main sections. Part I of this Note will begin by discussing the importance of judicial independence in modern society and the role of elected officials in shaping the public perception of the courts. Additionally, as problems of judicial legitimacy are age-old and date back to America’s founding, Part I will include a brief discussion of an early clash between President Thomas Jefferson and the courts.

Parts II and III of this Note will seek to place President Trump’s conduct towards the judicial branch within the proper historical context. Part II examines the …

Stern Claims And Article Iii Adjudication - The Bankruptcy Judge Knows Best, Laura B. Bartell

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Symposium: This Case Is Moot, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Adam Samaha

Faculty Scholarship

Forget guns for a moment. Imagine that, once upon a time, Boca Raton had a rule that prohibited its residents from transporting their golf clubs to driving ranges outside the city. Boca’s finest golfers challenged the constitutionality of the rule in court. Now imagine that the city thought twice and repealed the rule and that Florida then passed a statute authorizing people to transport their clubs to the driving ranges of their choice. The golfers could live happily ever after.

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …

The Federal–State Standing Gap: How To Enforce Federal Law In Federal Court Without Article Iii Standing, Peter N. Salib, David K. Suska

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

You, too, can sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause!

Since Inauguration Day, several lawsuits have been filed against President Trump because of his refusal to divest certain assets. They assert that Trump’s business interests conflict with the Emoluments Clause of Article I. That arcane provision forbids certain federal officials from accepting any perquisite or gain from a foreign monarch or state. The suits contend, for example, that a foreign dignitary’s booking of a room at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. would constitute an unlawful emolument.

Most commentators quickly threw cold water on the prospect of any plaintiff …

The Federal Equity Power, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Throughout the first century and a half of our nation’s history, federal courts treated equity as a type of general law. They applied a uniform, freestanding body of principles derived from the English Court of Chancery to all equitable issues that came before them, regardless of whether a case arose under federal or state law. In 1945, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the United States Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the changes wrought by the Erie Doctrine, federal courts may continue to rely on these traditional principles of equity to determine the availability of equitable relief, such as injunctions, …

Erie As A Way Of Life, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Court Capture, Jonas Anderson

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.

This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …

Custom In Our Courts: Reconciling Theory With Reality In The Debate About Erie Railroad And Customary International Law, Nikki C. Gutierrez, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most heated debates of the last two decades in U.S. legal academia focuses on customary international law’s domestic status after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. At one end, champions of the “modern position” support customary international law’s (“CIL”) wholesale incorporation into post-Erie federal common law. At the other end, “revisionists” argue that federal courts cannot apply CIL as federal law absent federal legislative authorization. Scholars on both sides of the Erie debate also make claims about the sources judges reference when discerning CIL. They then use these claims to support their arguments regarding CIL’s domestic status. Interestingly, neither …

Reciprocal Legitimation In The Federal Courts System, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Much scholarship in law and political science has long understood the U.S. Supreme Court to be the “apex” court in the federal judicial system, and so to relate hierarchically to “lower” federal courts. On that top-down view, exemplified by the work of Alexander Bickel and many subsequent scholars, the Court is the principal, and lower federal courts are its faithful agents. Other scholarship takes a bottom-up approach, viewing lower federal courts as faithless agents or analyzing the “percolation” of issues in those courts before the Court decides. This Article identifies circumstances in which the relationship between the Court and other …

Newsroom: Monestier On Web Jurisdiction 7/22/2016, Pat Murphy, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

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 …