Jurisdiction Commons^™

Introduction, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Bait And Switch: Equitable Estoppel And Mine Safety And Health Administration Jurisdiction, Steven A. Neace

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.

Steps To Alleviating Violence Against Women On Tribal Lands, Anjum Unwala

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

One in three Native American women has been raped or has experienced an attempted rape. Federal officials also failed to prosecute 75% of the alleged sex crimes against women and children living under tribal authority. The Senate bill to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) could provide appropriate recourse for Native American women who are victims of sexual assault. This bill (S. 1925), introduced in 2011, would grant tribal courts the ability to prosecute non-Indians who have sexually assaulted their Native American spouses and domestic partners. Congress has quickly reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act twice before. But …

Note: "Standing" In The Way Of Equality? The Myth Of Proponent Standing And The Jurisdictional Error In Perry V. Brown, Andrew Kim

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Article Iii And Removal Jurisdiction: The Demise Of The Complete Diversity Rule And A Proposed Return To Minimal Diversity, Rodney K. Miller

Oklahoma Law Review

The complete diversity rule is broken. Although easily applied in theory (federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an action on diversity grounds only when no party is of the same citizenship as any adverse party), over time the number of judicially and legislatively created exceptions to the rule, as well as their varying and inconsistent application by the federal courts, has created an environment in which similarly situated parties are treated differently based solely on the forum in which the litigation is brought. In the removal context, depending upon the forum in which an action is filed, a …

Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change To Jurisdictional Pleading Standards After Iqbal, James E. Von Der Heydt

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note describes a little-observed ripple effect of the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, the antiterrorism case whose holding swept broadly and changed the ground rules for considering allegations in so-called 12(b)(6) motions for all civil cases. This Note examines the interplay between the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine and federal courts’ practical approach to subject-matter jurisdiction. Part II describes the background jurisprudence on subject-matter jurisdiction, including the sharp line the Supreme Court has consistently re-drawn between claims lacking merit and those lacking jurisdictional basis, from Bell v. Hood through Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. The consistent theme of this jurisprudence …

Proof Of Classwide Injury, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

No abstract provided.

Evading Legislative Jurisdiction, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In the last few years, and mostly unnoticed, courts have adopted a radically different approach to issues of legislative jurisdiction. Instead of grappling with the difficult question of whether Congress intended a law to reach beyond U.S. borders, courts have side-stepped it entirely. Courts have done so by redefining the definition of extraterritoriality. Significant and contentious decisions in the Ninth and D.C. Circuits paved the way by holding that not all regulation of overseas foreign conduct is extraterritorial. And then suddenly, last term, the U.S. Supreme Court breathed life into the practice. In its landmark Morrison v. National Australia Bank …

Navigating The Borders Between International Commercial Arbitration And U.S. Federal Courts: A Jurisprudential Gps, S. I. Strong

Faculty Articles

Thus, this Article aims to provide newcomers to and infrequent users of international commercial arbitration with a brief introduction to the relationship between international arbitral proceedings and U.S. federal courts. Limitations of space mean that a great deal has necessarily been left out of this discussion. For example, this Article does not describe processes internal to the arbitration, in­stead focusing solely on the interaction between tribunal, parties and court. Fur­thermore, the text often skips over basic propositions of U.S. law that are well­-established in the domestic realm so as to concentrate more heavily on elements that are unique to international …

You Can't Go Holmes Again, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

Under the standard interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the so called Holmes test, pleading a federal cause of action is sufficient for finding federal question jurisdiction. In January 2012, the Supreme Court, in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, recharacterized this standard test for § 1331 jurisdiction as one that considers whether “federal law creates [both] a private right of action and furnishes the substantive rules of decision.” In this first piece to address the Mims Court’s significant change to the § 1331 canon, I applaud its rights-inclusive holding. I contend that this rights-inclusive view rests upon a firmer …

The Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case: From Tradition To Modernity And Halfway Back (Part Iii Of South Dakota Law Review Trilogy), Frank Pommersheim

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Alien Tort Claims And The Status Of Customary International Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Much of the recent debate about the status of customary international law in the U.S. legal system has revolved around the alien tort provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, currently section 1350 of Title 28. In Filártiga v. Peńa-Irala, the decision that launched modern human rights litigation in the United States, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied on the view that customary international law has the status of federal common law in upholding section 1350’s grant of federal jurisdiction over a suit between aliens. The court’s position that customary international law was federal law was …

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

Magic Words And The Erie Doctrine, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Internet-Related Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlap Tires V. Brown And J. Mcintyre V. Nicastro, Megan M. La Belle

Scholarly Articles

For the past two decades, courts have struggled with the question of how Internet-related contacts should be treated in the personal jurisdiction analysis. Some courts have utilized the traditional minimum contacts framework of International Shoe v. Washington , while others have devised new tests to accommodate this technological evolution. So when the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in two personal jurisdiction cases last term— Goodyear Dunlap Tires v. Brown and J. McIntyre v. Nicastro — many believed these unsettled questions of Internet related personal jurisdiction would finally be resolved. Disappointingly for litigants, lower courts, and academics, however, Goodyear and McIntyre …

Sealand, Havenco, And The Rule Of Law, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In 2000, a group of American entrepreneurs moved to a former World War II anti-aircraft platform in the North Sea, seven miles off the British coast, and launched HavenCo, one of the strangest start-ups in Internet history. A former pirate radio broadcaster, Roy Bates, had occupied the platform in the 1960s, moved his family aboard, and declared it to be the sovereign Principality of Sealand. HavenCo's founders were opposed to governmental censorship and control of the Internet; by putting computer servers on Sealand, they planned to create a "data haven" for unpopular speech, safely beyond the reach of any other …

Using Principles And Policies Of Maritime Arbitration To Guide Responsible Parties In Oil Spill Claims Resolution, Lucy Martucci

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This Note will: 1) provide an introduction to maritime arbitration, 2) discuss an example of a challenged arbitration award in the maritime context, 3) provide a background on OPA 90 and the National Pollution Funds Center ("NPFC"), 4) discuss the claims procedure under OPA 90, 5) discuss an example of a challenged NPFC decision, 6) discuss the problems with the GCCF, and 7) propose amendments to OPA 90. This Note will argue that in order to avoid the complex litigation that ultimately dissolved the GCCF, with the goals of cost efficiency, speed and fairness in mind, amendments to OPA 90 …

Can Equitable Estoppel Be Used As An Effective Way For A Legal Parent To Obtain Child Support For The Children Of A Separated Same-Sex Couple?, Josh Smolow

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Region Codes And The Territorial Mess, Peter K. Yu

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Flux And Fragmentation In The International Law Of State Jurisdiction: The Synecdochal Example Of Canada’S Domestic Court Conflicts Over Accountability For International Human Rights Violations, Robert Currie, Hugh Kindred

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Any serious exploration of unity and fragmentation in public international law must consider the normative basis of one of the fundamental tools of state action on the international plane: jurisdiction. And no better illustration of the fluctuating application of jurisdiction may be had than to take a national sample – such as Canada – of domestic courts’ struggles to establish accountability for human rights conduct and abuses abroad. The paradigms of the law of jurisdiction, as with the vast corpus of international law, originally responded to the needs of the traditional verities of a legal system based around the state …

Pereira's Attack On Legalizing Euthanasia Or Assisted Suicide: Smoke And Mirrors, Jocelyn Downie, Kenneth Chambaere, Jan L. Bernheim

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In a paper published in Current Oncology, University of Ottawa palliative care physician Jose Pereira states that the, “laws and safeguards [in countries in which euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized] are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions, and that transgressions are not prosecuted.” He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an “illusion.”

In the present paper, we expose problems with the evidence base provided and relied upon by Pereira. It should be noted that we provide only examples of each of the categories of mistakes made …

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

Choice Of Law As General Common Law: A Reply To Professor Brilmayer, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Kiss The Ring, But Never Touch The Crown: How U.S. Policy Denies Indian Women Bodily Autonomy And The Save Native Women Act's Attempt To Reverse That Policy, Hossein Dabiri

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories-"Indian country." The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, And The Ministerial Exemption, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

No History, No Certainty, No Legitimacy . . . No Problem: Originalism And The Limits Of Legal Theory, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Martin H. Redish is on the warpath. Like General Sherman marching toward Atlanta (or Justin Tuck marching toward Tom Brady), Professor Redish, together with Matthew Arnould,1 lays waste to every constitutional theory that he encounters. Originalism, with its “belief that constitutional interpretation should be characterized exclusively by an effort to determine the Constitution’s meaning by means of some form of historical inquiry,”2 generates “an often contrived and opaque veil of historical inquiry”3 that provides “an ideal smokescreen behind which judges may pursue their personal[,] moral, political[,] or economic goals with relative impunity.”4 Nontextual theories, for their part, “permit[] selective …

The First Ever (Maybe) Original Jurisdiction Standings, David Hatton, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

One of the more interesting clauses of the Constitution is the one that gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought by one state against another state. These cases have historically made up a consistent, though small, part of the Supreme Court’s docket, but nobody has yet to investigate how the various states have fared in these suits. In this article, we analyze all of the state versus state cases decided over the past 112 years and provide the first ever (we think) official standings of how the states stack up. Minnesota is the big winner.

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jonathan Remy Nash's article, On the Efficient Deployment of Rules and Standards to Define Federal Jurisdiction, bravely tackles and creatively merges-the dual debates over rules versus standards and the ideal contours of federal jurisdiction.' He proposes a revised regime in which rules define jurisdictional boundaries at the front end, while standards "migrate" into a discretionary abstention phase at the back end.² This realignment, Nash argues, optimizes efficiency and predictability by placing a bright-line rule at the jurisdictional threshold, while promoting federalism by establishing a safety net that applies standards to claims that cross the threshold. ³ In this …

Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule^.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …