Jurisdiction Commons^™

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 …

Hogan Vs. Gawker Ii: A Statutory Solution To Fraudulent Joinder, Michelle S. Simon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article will first review the intersection of federal jurisdiction and litigation strategy by examining the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in federal court as well as the circumstances that must be present to allow a defendant to remove a case from state court to federal court. The Article will then review the history of the court-created doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and will examine the various tests currently in use by the lower federal courts. The Article will then address whether it makes more sense to create a statutory solution, and will examine and analyze the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of …

The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes, Lochlan F. Shelfer

Georgia Law Review

Constitutional litigation is increasingly being waged
between governments, in both suits between a state and
the United States, and suits between two or more states.
The jurisdictionof the Federalcourts to hear such suits,
however, is disputed. The Supreme Court's cases are
famously difficult to reconcile, with some denying
jurisdiction and other seemingly identical cases
addressing the merits without discussing jurisdiction.
Some scholars have argued that intergovernmental
disputes over political jurisdiction historically are not
justiciableand that it is constitutionally illegitimate for
the Court to hear them. Recently, some scholars have
argued that the Court should hear such cases, but have
assumed …

A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Context At The International Criminal Court, Hassan Ahmad

Pace International Law Review

In this article, I propose a contextual approach to ICC jurisdiction normatively to be adopted by the Court’s Office of the Prosecutor and Pre-Trial Chamber in investigating and eventually prosecuting crimes under the Rome Statute. Under this contextual approach, I contend that both the Prosecutor and Pre-Trial Chamber are able to consider evidence outside the traditional notions of territorial and temporal jurisdiction to conceptualize a conflict in its entirety. The totality of cross-border and inter-temporal evidence should be considered when deciding whether to investigate attacks that the Prosecutor has a reasonable basis to believe fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. Procedurally, …

Doscher: The Second Circuit Frees Itself From Its Prior Look Through Approach, Fueling A Circuit Split, Peter Nelson

Arbitration Law Review (2009 - Present)

No abstract provided.

Adverse Interests And Article Iii: A Reply, James E. Pfander, Daniel Birk

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars and jurists have long sought an explanation for why the Framers of Article III distinguished “Cases” from “Controversies.” In a previous article that cataloged the exercise of federal jurisdiction over uncontested matters, such as pension claims, warrant applications, and naturalization proceedings, we tried to provide an answer to this question. We suggested that, at least as to “cases” arising under federal law, the federal courts could exercise what Roman and civil lawyers called non-contentious jurisdiction or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, could hear uncontested claims of right in the form prescribed by law. As for “controversies,” by …

Brief Amici Curiae On Behalf Of International And Constitutional Law Experts In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Al Bahlul V. United States , 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (En Banc), Robert D. Sloane, Foley Hoag Llp

Faculty Scholarship

Amici curiae, legal experts in international and constitutional law, believe that a majority of the en banc panel in Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc), mistakenly affirmed Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s conviction by a military commission for a non-international war crime. The main concurring opinion in that case misconceived how international law defines the jurisdiction of law-of-war military commissions. As amici argue below, it is the Constitution—not international law—that limits the jurisdiction of lawof-war military commissions.

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa’S Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Georgia State University Law Review

More than a decade after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), courts continue to disagree as to its application and meaning in a variety of situations, many of which have wide-ranging effects. This article considers a fundamental issue that arises after a certification decision is reached: whether a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA depends on a class being certified. Specifically, the article considers what happens when a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction derives solely from CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction provision and a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) …

When Is It Necessary For Corporations To Be Essentially At Home?: An Exploration Of Exceptional Cases, Priscilla Heinz

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Safe To Speak Up Now? Evaluating The Expansion Of Whistleblower Protection Act Jurisdiction, Gil Landau

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Whistleblowers have uncovered billions of dollars of fraud and severe national security threats. Nonetheless, for many years, federal employee whistleblowers faced retaliation and termination. Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) in an attempt to protect federal employee whistleblowers. But, the exclusive court for WPA appeals, the Federal Circuit, ignored Congressional intent and limited the WPA’s protections. In 2013, Congress responded by creating a five year experiment, known as “all circuit review,” to determine if WPA claims should also be appealable to the regional circuits. Over the past three years, all circuit review has led to modest changes in WPA …

Original Intent: Understanding The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction In Controversies Between States, Kristen A. Linsley

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Undemocratic Restraint, Fred O. Smith, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

For almost two hundred years, a basic tenet of American law has been that federal courts must generally exercise jurisdiction when they possess it. And yet, self-imposed prudential limits on judicial power have, at least until recently, roared on despite these pronouncements. The judicial branch's avowedly self-invented doctrines include some (though not all) aspects of standing, ripeness, abstention, and the political question doctrine. The Supreme Court recently, and unanimously, concluded that prudential limits are in severe tension with our system of representative democracy because they invite policy determinations from unelected judges. Even with these pronouncements, however, the Court has not …

The Stream Of Violence: A New Approach To Domestic Violence Personal Jurisdiction, Cody Jacobs

Faculty Scholarship

There is a split among state courts about whether personal jurisdiction over an alleged domestic violence perpetrator is required in order to obtain a civil protection order preventing the defendant from contacting the victim. Some courts have held that such orders interfere with the defendant’s liberty interests, and therefore the Due Process Clause requires personal jurisdiction for the issuance of such orders. Other courts have held that personal jurisdiction is not required because such protection orders are analogous to custody and divorce orders, which, under the “status exception,” courts have historically entered without establishing personal jurisdiction over the other party. …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae, Bnsf Railway Co. V. Tyrrell, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

[This brief was filed in support of the petitioner in No. 16-405 (U.S., cert. granted Jan. 13, 2017).]

BNSF Railway Co. should win this case, but on statutory grounds alone. BNSF makes three arguments:

1) That Daimler AG v. Bauman forbids Montana’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction here;

2) That Congress has not sought to license the state’s exercise of jurisdiction; and

3) That such a license would be void under the Fourteenth Amendment.

BNSF’s first two arguments are fully persuasive and decide the case. As a result, the Court should decline to reach the third argument. Not only is …

Native Youth & Juvenile Injustice In South Dakota, Addie C. Rolnick

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Rolnick uses the three themes of racism, jurisdiction, and tribal sovereignty to provide a snapshot of the juvenile justice system in South Dakota as it impacts Native youth. First, she describes the tribal juvenile justice systems in the state. She argues tribal systems should rightfully play a central role handling Native youth offenders, but they are underfunded and may not therefore be sufficiently responsive to young offenders' needs. Second, she examines the impact of federal power over youth on reservations in South Dakota. Specifically, federal juvenile jurisdiction, as well as federal financial and administrative power, can …

Cross-Border Evidence Gathering In Transnational Criminal Investigation: Is The Microsoft Ireland Case The 'Next Frontier'?, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

A recent and prominent American appeals court case has revived a controversial international law question: can a state compel a person on its territory to obtain and produce material which the person owns or controls, but which is stored on the territory of a foreign state? The case involved, United States v. Microsoft, features electronic data stored offshore which was sought in the context of a criminal prosecution. It highlights the current legal complexity surrounding the cross-border gathering of electronic evidence, which has produced friction and divergent state practice. The author here contends that the problems involved are best understood—and …

Operationalizing Free, Prior, And Informed Consent, Carla F. Fredericks

Publications

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has acknowledged varying ways in which international actors can protect, respect and remedy the rights of indigenous peoples. One of these methods is the concept of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as described in Articles 10, 19, 28 and 29. There has been much debate in the international community over the legal status of the UNDRIP, and member states have done little to implement it. In applied contexts, many entities like extractive industries and conservation groups are aware of risks inherent in not soliciting FPIC and have endeavored to …

The Court Jurisdiction And Proceedings Transfer Act And The Hague Conference’S Judgments And Jurisdiction Projects, Joost Blom

All Faculty Publications

The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) codifies the substantive law of jurisdiction in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. One of the questions that may be posed by the future of the CJPTA is how the jurisdictional system that it enacts would function in relation to two potential international conventions that are contemplated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. One, a convention on the enforcement of judgments, is in an advanced stage of negotiation and may well be adopted by the Hague Conference. It deals with jurisdiction indirectly, by defining jurisdictional standards or “filters” that must …

If We Don’T Bring Them To Court, The Terrorists Will Have Won: Reinvigorating The Anti-Terrorist Act And General Jurisdiction In A Post-Daimler Era, Stephen J. Digregoria

Brooklyn Law Review

Prior to the Supreme Court's recent general personal jurisdiction decisions in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown American terror victims, injured in terror attacks abroad, were able to bring their attackers and those who sponsor them into United States courts for relief. Specifically, groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (the PA) had a history of being sued by American victims of terror. In the course of these suits, the PLO and the PA were regularly found subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts under a theory of …

Foreign Judgments In Florida Bankruptcy Courts: Choice Of Law, Statutes Of Limitations, And Other Unresolved Issues, Michael Raudebaugh

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waiving Jurisdiction, Jessica Berch

Pace Law Review

This Article explains why courts treat subject-matter jurisdiction as sacrosanct, demonstrates why this reaction is unwarranted, and advocates that, in cases like Kroger, a defect in the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction should be deemed waived if not raised before trial begins or any adjudication is made on the merits.

This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I briefly reviews why the current system of strong rhetoric, riddled with myriad exceptions, is cumbersome, confusing, and unnecessary. Part II examines other structural constitutional doctrines that courts have nonetheless deemed waivable: mootness, sovereign immunity, and territorial conceptions of personal jurisdiction. In …

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 …

Terra Firma As Open Seas: Interpreting Kiobel In The Failed State Context, Drew F. Waldbeser

Indiana Law Journal

This Note will ultimately argue that, despite the expansive language in Kiobel, the Court’s reasoning does not necessarily foreclose all “foreign-cubed” claims. Suits alleging human rights violations originating from conduct that took place in failed states avoid the concerns the Court emphasized in Kiobel. The Court should allow jurisdiction for human rights offenses in failed states, despite their “foreign-cubed” nature, because the already existing rationale for allowing jurisdiction for international piracy offenses is highly analogous.

Part I of this Note explores the ATS jurisprudence leading up to and including Kiobel. Besides exploring the tensions and policy interests courts are grappling …

Judicial Recusation In The Federal Republic Of Germany, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Effects Of International Judgments Relating To Awards, Maxi Scherer

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article looks at those judgments relating to international arbitral awards (award judgments) and, more precisely, at their extraterritorial effects. It analyzes whether an award judgment rendered in one jurisdiction has effects in other jurisdictions. For instance, if the award has been set aside6 in country A, does the set-aside judgment have effects on enforcement proceedings in country B? Similarly, if country C refuses to enforce an award on the basis that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, does this have a preclusive effect on enforcement proceedings pending in country D? These questions have been addressed in a number of recent …

Submerged Precedent, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Numerous studies have pointed to the skewed picture of trial courts' workload, management, and disposition of cases that exists from examining Westlaw and Lexis opinions alone, akin to navigating the iceberg from its tip.⁴ But submerged precedent pushes docketology in an uncharted direction by identifying a mass of reasoned opinions-putative precedent and not mere evidence of decision-making-that exist only on dockets. Submerged precedent thus raises the specter that docket-based research may be necessary in some areas to ascertain an accurate picture of the law itself not just trial courts' administration of it.

The existence of a submerged body …