Jurisdiction Commons^™

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

Defining Deference: Impacts Of Abandoning Chevron On Emerging Technology Governance And Administrative Law, R. Aubrey Davis Iii

Seattle University Law Review

Emerging technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), often lead to unforeseen legal outcomes. Notable abuses in areas such as facial recognition, employment bias, and housing discrimination are well known. However, legislative responses to these issues either have been largely reactive or there has been no legislative response at all. In lieu of legislation, agencies have sought to fill the gap. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently proposed a rule mandating voter notification for all AI-generated political phone calls citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 as authority. However, the TCPA was originally passed to curtail telemarketing, not …

Constraining The Executive Branch: Delegation, Agency Independence, And Congressional Design Of Judicial Review, Jennifer L. Selin, Pamela J. Clouser Mccann

Northwestern University Law Review

While scholarship examining the relationship between Congress, federal agencies, and the judiciary reveals variation in the statutory details that affects administrative and judicial decision-making, few studies explore the extent to which congressional delegation decisions balance both the substantive and procedural independence of agencies against the possibility of the federal judiciary’s review of administrative action.

This Article enhances scholarly understanding of delegation by providing a qualitative, theoretical, and empirical account of the circumstances under which Congress manipulates federal agency exposure to the federal judiciary. Ironically, combined with statutory provisions dictating agency independence, increasing an agency’s exposure to unelected federal judges can …

"Then What?": A Framework For Life Without Chevron, Gary Lawson

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce. What happens next? What should happen next?

This essay does not try to answer either of those important questions. Rather, it seeks to provide a framework to promote careful thinking about those questions. Specifically, any predictive or prescriptive account of the law governing judicial review of federal agency legal interpretations needs to think carefully about four issues.

First, what does “deference” actually mean in any given context? “Deference” can mean anything from polite respect to absolute obeisance, and everything in …

"Major Questions" Malarkey: An Arbitrary And Capricious New Doctrine For Vetoing Controversial Agency Rules, Lars Noah

UF Law Faculty Publications

In 2022, in West Virginia v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court officially adopted the “major questions” doctrine. Commentators have already spilled plenty of ink trying to make sense of what this might portend, but so far seemingly everyone has accepted at face value the Court’s framing of the issue that it confronted in that case. This symposium contribution offers a slightly different perspective on the decision and suggests that closer attention to the precise nature of the question posed therein might reveal a distinctive flaw at the heart of the majority’s newfangled clear statement rule—it only sows confusion to …

Keeping Faith With Nomos, Steven L. Winter

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Courts And Democratic Theory: Toward A Theory Of State Constitutional Judicial Review, David Schultz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Troubled Waters Between U.S. And European Antitrust, D. Daniel Sokol

Michigan Law Review

Review of The Atlantic Divide in Antitrust: An Examination of US and EU Competition Policy by Daniel J. Gifford and Robert T. Kudrle.

Antidumping - Redefinition Of Confidentiality And Right Of Judicial Review - Institution Of A New Form Of Relief: Timex Corporation V. Council And Commission Of The European Communities, Carlton L. Kell

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Authority Giving Our Appellate Courts Jurisdiction Of Fact Should Be Repealed, William E. Crawford

Louisiana Law Review

The article discusses the constitutional authority granting appellate courts in Louisiana the jurisdiction to review the record of a civil jury trial as well as to issue its own judgment contrary to the verdict of the jury. It presents several cases in which jury decisions were reversed including Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Menard v. Lafayette Insurance Company, and Fontenot v. Patterson.

Fernandez-Vargas V. Gonzales: An Examination Of Retroactivity And The Effect Of The Illegal Immigration Reform And Immigrant Responsibility Act, Brooke Hardin

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Take On Immigration In Nken V. Holder: Reaffirming A Traditional Standard That Affords Courts More Time And Flexibility To Decide Immigration Appeals Before Deporting Aliens, Elizaveta Kabanova

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Mexican-American Penal Sentences Treaty: A Run-On Sentence, Gary Gray

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the …