Jurisdiction Commons^™

It Takes A Village: An Analysis Of Multilateralism And The Legal Mechanisms Designed To Prevent Violence Against Women, Madison Ivey

Scripps Senior Theses

Treaties and international organizations work together to create a global environment that protects the rights of a person and actively promotes the well-being of society. However, they do not necessarily guarantee the rights of everyone. Since women are not explicitly named in human rights documents, they are often not granted equal human rights. Therefore, it takes more than just international legal instruments to guarantee women's rights as human rights. A combination of civil society (NGOs), International organizations (IOs), and domestic government creates a perfect coalition to beat the barriers that must be overcome to fully protect women from violence.

Who Owns A Joke? Copyright Law And Stand-Up Comedy, Scott Woodard

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Copyright laws are touted as the highest legal authorities by which artists can protect their works against all comers. However, when an artist's work fails to fit neatly into the statutory parameters needed to acquire copyright protection, that artist could receive no safeguards to ensure that their works will not be misappropriated by others.

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of two copyright regimes--from the United States and the United Kingdom--and measures their relative similarities and differences. From this comparison, this article explains how stand-up comedians, a group of artists who have traditionally believed their work was incapable of receiving …

Of Hats And Robes: Judicial Review Of Nonadjudicative Article Iii Functions, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

University of Richmond Law Review

We are accustomed to thinking of Article III courts and judges deciding cases and controversies. But, federal judges and courts have historically also engaged in official but nonadjudicative activities. In addition to a history of federal judges serving on nonjudicial commissions, federal judges and the Supreme Court participate in the rulemaking process for the federal procedural and evidentiary rules. Although some argue to the contrary, the Supreme Court has approved such arrangements in the face of separation of powers objections. Since Article III officers and courts perform nonadjudicative duties, the question arises of how federal courts who address a challenge …

Choice Of Law And The Right Of Publicity: Rethinking The Domicile Rule, Mary Lafrance

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Cyberbullying: Are You Protected? An Analysis And Guide To Effective And Constitutional Cyberbullying Protections, Mendel Forta

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

From Territorial To Universal-The Extraterritoriality Of Trademark Law And The Privatizing Of International Law, P. Sean Morris

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

Legal doctrines, aided and abetted by interpretations of the courts, carry the force of law. The implication is that when courts settle matters, they often go beyond the scope of current intellectual property legislation. Furthermore, global problems in intellectual property may require the participation of private intellectual property rights owners to bring suit. This, in turn, often creates more problems due to the territorial, trans-territorial, and extraterritorial reach of the law, especially with respect private trademark rights. I explore this and other legal conundrums in this Article. The key concern addressed in the Article is how far trademark law is …

Jurisdiction And "Definitional Law", John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Scott Dodson and I agree that the law of federal jurisdiction needs improvement. We disagree, however, on Congress’s power to make that happen. In an article published in 2017, Dodson argued that “jurisdiction” has an “inherent identity” that “[n]either Congress nor the courts can change.” In an article published the following year, I critiqued this claim. There, I argued that Congress is not obliged to respect jurisdiction’s inherent identity (to the extent it might have one). Rather, Congress need only respect the identity of jurisdiction contained in the United States Constitution. Professor Dodson recently published a rejoinder to my …

The Promise And Pitfalls Of C-92: An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, And Métis Children, Youth And Families, Naiomi Metallic, Hadley Friedland, Sarah Morales

Reports & Public Policy Documents

On June 21, 2019, Bill C-92 An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families became law. The Bill is a huge and unprecedented step forward in Canada. It is the first time the federal government has exercised its jurisdiction to legislate in the area of Indigenous child welfare.

In this article, we identify both the improvements in Bill C-92 since our last report as well as key problems that remain in the five following areas: 1) National Standards 2) Jurisdiction 3) Funding 4) Accountability 5) Data Collection We also suggest strategies to assist Indigenous communities in …

Plaintiff Personal Jurisdiction And Venue Transfer, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Personal jurisdiction usually focuses on the rights of the defendant. This is because a plaintiff implicitly consents to personal jurisdiction in the court where the plaintiff chooses to file. But what if the defendant seeks to transfer venue to a court in a state in which the plaintiff has no contacts and never consented to personal jurisdiction? Lower courts operate on the assumption that in both ordinary venue-transfer cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and multidistrict-litigation cases under § 1407(a), personal-jurisdiction concerns for plaintiffs simply do not apply. I contest that assumption. Neither statute expands the statutory authorization of federal-court …

When Forum Selection Clauses Meet Choice Of Law Clauses, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Public Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Chris Dove, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What The Dialogue (Still) Has To Teach Us, Henry P. Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020.

The Sources Of Immunity Law – Between International And Domestic Law, Lori Fisler Damrosch

Faculty Scholarship

The immunities regimes covered by this volume presuppose the existence of juridically equal States whose interactions are governed by international law. States engage in international relations with each other through a variety of agents, who could be individuals or legal persons; and States likewise establish international organizations for carrying out shared purposes. Each State has a domestic legal system through which State actors generate various sorts of executive, judicial and legislative practice, all of which can in principle be evidence of the international law of immunities.

The several regimes relevant to the immunities of the State itself, and of international …

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.

Rising Confusion About "Arising Under" Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …

Who’S Your Sovereign?: The Standing Doctrine Of Parens Patriae & State Lawsuits Defending Sanctuary Policies, Lexi Zerrillo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenging Federalism: How The States’ Loud Constitutional Provocation Is Being Met With Silence, Jennifer M. Haidar

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Enforceability: Foreign Arbitral Awards In Chinese Courts, Mo Zhang

San Diego International Law Journal

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China has always been a widespread concern. There is not only a fear of deficiency in the Chinese legal system, but also a disconnection between foreign perception and Chinese reality. Since the nation joined the New York Convention in the 1980’s, China has made efforts to fulfill its treaty obligations. Foreign parties, however, remain skeptical about whether foreign arbitral awards will be fairly enforced in the country.

In 2015, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) issued a judicial interpretation that contains provisions explicitly addressing several confusing and controversial matters on foreign arbitration. In …

Ike’S Constitutional Venturing: The Institutionalization Of The Cia, Covert Action, And American Interventionism, Jacob A. Bruggeman

Grand Valley Journal of History

U.S. covert action from the 1950s onward was shaped, in part, by the success a CIA-orchestrated coup d'état in which the United States deposed the popular Iranian nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh. Ordered by president Eisenhower, the coup in Iran set the precedent for utilizing covert action as a means of achieving State goals. In so doing, President Eisenhower overturned the precedent set by his immediate predecessor, President Truman: that is, the precedent of using the CIA in its intended function, gathering and evaluating intelligence. The coup, then, is an exemplary case of venture constitutionalism. Eisenhower, in ordering the coup, extended his …

Congress And Commercial Trusts: Dealing With Diversity Jurisdiction Post-Americold, S. I. Strong

Florida Law Review

Commercial trusts are one of the United States’ most important types of business organizations, holding trillions of dollars of assets and operating nationally and internationally as a “mirror image” of the corporation. However, commercial trusts remain underappreciated and undertheorized in comparison to corporations, often as a result of the popular but mistaken belief that commercial trusts are analogous to traditional intergenerational trusts or that corporations reflect the primary or paradigmatic form of business association.

The treatment of commercial trusts reached its nadir in early 2016, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. that …

Will Delaware Be Different? An Empirical Study Of Tc Heartland And The Shift To Defendant Choice Of Venue, Ofer Eldar, Neel U. Sukhatme

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Why do some venues evolve into litigation havens while others do not? Venues might compete for litigation for various reasons, like enhancing their judges’ prestige and increasing revenues for the local bar. This competition is framed by the party that chooses the venue. Whether plaintiffs or defendants primarily choose venue is crucial because, we argue, the two scenarios are not symmetrical.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods LLC illustrates this dynamic. There, the Court effectively shifted venue choice in many patent infringement cases from plaintiffs to corporate defendants. We use TC Heartland to empirically …

Congressional Power To Strip State Courts Of Jurisdiction, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The very substantial literature on the scope of congressional power to strip courts of jurisdiction contains a gap: it does not discuss the source of the affirmative power of Congress to strip state courts of their jurisdiction. Laws granting exclusive federal court jurisdiction over some category of cases are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts, but what power does Congress exercise when it strips both state and federal courts of jurisdiction? The answer depends on the nature of the case. In stripping all courts of the power to hear federal …

Book Review: Prosecuting Corporations For Genocide, Sarah Federman

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

No abstract provided.

The (Not-So) “Brave New World Of International Criminal Enforcement”: The Intricacies Of Multi-Jurisdictional White-Collar Investigations, Emily T. Carlson

Brooklyn Law Review

We have entered a new age of international white-collar crime and are seeing the growing interdependency of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and parallel foreign agencies to conduct investigations and subsequent prosecutorial proceedings. This coordination to combat these crimes, however, has revealed a troubling question—how can enforcement agencies work effectively together if they have fundamental differences in the legal authority governing testimony-gathering and what evidence is allowed before a grand jury? The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Allen, confronted this issue directly as it overturned two indictments arising out of suspected manipulation of a …

Jurisdiction In The Trump Era, Scott Dodson

Fordham Law Review

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States induced immediate speculation about how his tenure would affect various areas of the law. In civil-procedure circles, the intuition is that his status as a probusiness, antiregulation Republican seems likely to push procedural doctrine generally in pro-defendant directions. That intuition seems sound in the specific procedural subtopic of jurisdictional doctrine relating to forum selection. In this Essay, I document recent pre-Trump, pro-defendant trends in personal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and I detail how those trends impose significant burdens on plaintiffs. I then explain why the remainder of Trump’s presidency …

Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. Lundgren, Brett Berntsen

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Stemming from a property dispute between a private landowner and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, this action evolved into a debate concerning the scope of tribal sovereign immunity and whether Indian tribes should be bound by certain common law doctrines applicable to most other sovereigns. The Washington Supreme Court originally ruled against the Tribe, citing County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation in holding that sovereign immunity does not apply to in rem actions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify that its ruling in Yakima did not support such a proposition. The case …

The Problem Of Purely Procedural Preemption Presented By The Federal Hear Act, William L. Charron

Pepperdine Law Review

The underlying purpose of the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 (the HEAR Act), which is to return Nazi-looted artwork to victims or their families, is undeniably laudable. Restituting Nazi-looted artwork is and has been a moral objective of this country since the conclusion of World War II. It is equally clear that victims and their families can often face obstacles to gathering evidence from the war that would demonstrate Nazi theft in court. The HEAR Act strives to address these concerns by imposing a federal statute of limitations over all state law causes of action that would enable …

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

Weed Wars: Winning The Fight Against Marijuana Spillover From Neighboring States, Jessica Berch

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.