Jurisprudence Commons^™

A Comparative Study Of Chinese And American Approaches To Shaping International Outer Space Law And Norms, Ariel G. Silverman

Seattle University Law Review

This article explores convergences and divergencies in the United States and PRC’s responses to the stalemate in the United Nations over the future of outer space resource governance. I do so by systematically analyzing these leading space-faring nations’ policy-positions and tactics deployed to shape norms around three substantive areas of outer space resource governance: rights of ownership and scope of utilization of space resources, mechanization of the “benefits sharing” principle, and the rights and responsibilities of the private sector. I theorize that these leading space-faring nations have adopted divergent approaches due to their differing historical relationships with international law and …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Valentine Act And Sherman Act: Separate And Distinct Antitrust Regimes, Thomas J. Collin

Cleveland State Law Review

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the Valentine Act was patterned after the Sherman Act and should be interpreted in light of federal court interpretations of the Sherman Act. The Court was wrong, and its error persists. With the exception of a private right of action provision and a borrowed definition, nothing in the Valentine Act was derived from the Sherman Act. The holding ignores text and legislative history and has foreclosed development of any independent jurisprudence for a statute intended by the General Assembly to address grave antitrust abuses. This Article analyzes the Court’s error, details the origins …

The Federalism Canons As Ordinary Interpretation, Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Bradford R. Clark

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars remain generally skeptical of substantive canons of statutory interpretation even as courts continue to employ such canons in important cases. Unlike semantic canons, which help judges discern the best meaning of statutory text in context, substantive canons provide tiebreakers when the text is unclear or require special clarity in order for the text to perform certain functions. Among the substantive canons, the so-called “federalism canons” have been singled out for special scrutiny. The federalism canons are a family of canons that require courts to avoid interpreting an act of Congress to divest states of certain sovereign rights or powers—including …

Electoral Due Process, Michael S. Kang

Northwestern University Law Review

Hyperpartisanship has hit century-long highs in American politics and is emboldening state government attempts to undermine election outcomes by using control over state lawmaking structure to strip away authority, and sometimes outright unseat, partisan opponents after they win elected office. Even as traditional norms against such moves have eroded, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-partisanship turn in removing judicial checks against such moves under equal protection and constitutional structure. This Article proposes shifting from challenges under those doctrines to a new approach under electoral due process for confronting this new generation of antidemocracy. Federal due process law restricts the …

Applying The Indian Commerce Clause To Indian Commerce, Adam Crepelle

Northwestern University Law Review

Indian country commerce generates tens of billions of dollars annually and is a constant source of litigation. These disputes typically revolve around jurisdictional conflicts: whether states, tribes, or both possess regulatory authority over the business operating in Indian country, particularly those involving non-Indians. Despite numerous court cases, no clear legal framework has emerged, creating pervasive uncertainty regarding fundamental issues, such as state taxation of tribal transactions and the proper forum for resolving Indian country contract disputes. Interestingly, these commercial cases overlook the Indian Commerce Clause—the constitutional provision designed to address such matters.

This Article argues the Indian Commerce Clause prohibits …

The Establishment That Time Forgot: The Historical Understanding Of Religious Offenses And Their Unconstitutionality In Modern Law, Benjamin J. Citow

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note argues that religious offenses, meaning laws which penalize conduct for religious purposes, should be barred by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, as the Clause was interpreted in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. This is because Kennedy interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit each of the several types of laws which early Americans associated with religious establishment—the historical practice wherein early states would adopt a religion as the state religion and pass various types of laws for its support. And religious offenses, this Note argues, were amongst the types of laws which early Americans so associated with …

The Role Of The U.S. State Department As An Amicus In Foreign Policy Abstention Analysis, Sarah Kurpius

Northwestern University Law Review

Foreign policy abstention is a novel and unsettled doctrine in international litigation. Unlike other established international litigation abstention doctrines, foreign policy abstention permits courts to decline jurisdiction when adjudication implicates significant foreign policy concerns. First invoked in 2004, the doctrine has since appeared sporadically in case law, most recently in the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Reid v. Doe Run Resources. Yet, its analytical framework remains muddy and amorphous, leading to inconsistent judicial application.

This Note examines one critical factor courts consider when determining whether to apply the foreign policy abstention: the strength of U.S. foreign policy interests in the …

Prof. Andrew Hammond Appointed To Seventh Circuit Advisory Committee On Circuit Rules, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

Andrew Hammond, Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, has been appointed to the Advisory Committee on Circuit Rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“I am honored to serve on the Seventh Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Circuit Rules,” Hammond said. “My first job out of law school was clerking for then-Chief Judge Wood of the Seventh Circuit, and my experience working for her and later Judge Dow in the Northern District of Illinois helped shape how I think about federal practice and procedure. I am also …

Clemency For Justice Reform: A Restorative Pardon Proposal Using Conditional Pardons, Stephanie A. Clark

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

President Donald Trump’s pardons to people convicted for the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol intensified the nation’s divisiveness. They also illustrate why proper clemency must be restored and used for its intended purpose to ameliorate injustice under the law. Clemency is not meant to be a “get out of jail free card” solely for family, friends, and political supporters. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to relieve consequences out of step with a criminal offense or to salve broad public hurt. When clemency is misused, it undermines public confidence and the principle that equal opportunity should exist for …

An Originalist Interpretation Of Article Iii Permits And Favors Bivens Actions As A Recognition Of The Intrinsic Connection Between Rights And Remedies, Shrivathsan Margam S

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

The Bivens Doctrine, which stands for the principle that judges may infer private causes of action for money damages against federal officers from a constitutional text that does not expressly create such remedies, has faced attack from Originalists on the Supreme Court of the United States. Every case seeking to extend the Bivens principle to a new context meets rejection from the Court with concurrences calling for overturning it altogether. This Article will argue that an Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, specifically the Original Methods subset of the ascendant lens of Original Public Meaning, permits and counsels in favor …

The Fiduciary Game, Lauren R. Roth

Indiana Law Journal

Fiduciary duties are supposed to bridge the gap between public and private law. Private actors who engage in “public or quasi-public” functions (e.g., corporate directors and pension administrators) are often subject to fiduciary constraints to protect vulnerable parties who lack power in relationships with these actors. Recently, scholars have argued that both courts and legislatures have inappropriately expanded the use of fiduciary duties to purely private relationships. But what if the problem is not the expansion of fiduciary duties to private relationships, but the increasing delegation of public powers to private actors whose behavior cannot be adequately constrained by fiduciary …

Reimagining Self-Regulation In Sexual Misconduct Complaints: Trust Through Transfer, Allyson M. Mcbride

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

To increase trust in the judiciary’s ability to self-regulate, any formal complaints about a judge should not be handled by a colleague down the hall, but a judge from a different circuit. In this Comment, I propose automatic transfer out of circuit to improve the handling of sexual misconduct complaints specifically. I first describe the different ways judicial conduct is regulated in the federal system. I then discuss the problem of sexual misconduct in the judiciary. Finally, I outline why it is problematic for judges to adjudicate complaints about their intra-circuit colleagues and recommend that all complaints be automatically transferred …

Interrogating The Facts Of The Case, Anna Roberts

Indiana Law Journal

Buried within many criminal judicial opinions is the origin of their “facts”—the interrogation room. Criminal law pedagogy should expose this origin. If we treat the alleged product of interrogation as “what happened,” as criminal cases (and professors) sometimes do, we obscure the ways in which interrogators are trained to incriminate and to co-create confessions. We also risk obscuring subsequent layers of reporting by police, prosecutors, or judges.

Recent scholarly literature urges criminal law professors to teach differently, warning that we distort, sanitize, and bolster the carceral state when we erase governmental agents and bypass procedure. Treating the “facts of the …

Misinformation And The Jury, Gustavo Ribeiro

Indiana Law Journal

This Article bridges critical gaps between the growing body of social science research on misinformation and the persistent challenges jurors face in evaluating potentially unreliable evidence in courtrooms. Misinformation—a pervasive issue undermining decision-making in democratic societies—mirrors the difficulties jurors encounter in distinguishing truth from falsehood amid compelling but unreliable evidence. The consequences of such challenges are dire: wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the erosion of public trust in the legal system.

This Article is the first piece of legal scholarship to provide a comprehensive discussion of current research on the psychological mechanisms underlying susceptibility to misinformation—such as the illusory truth …

Useful Noise: Understanding Dicta And Knowing What To Do With It, Len Niehoff, Tucker Gribble

Articles

Sometimes we approach the idea of obiter dictum as if it were Latin for “Here the court says something I wish it didn’t.” When a judicial opinion includes a statement that hurts our case, we labor to cast it as dicta and we give it the first name “mere.” If the opposing party quotes the statement, we huff about its irrelevance and dismissively proclaim that it can, indeed must, be ignored. We treat dicta as background noise, and we encourage the court to plug its ears and hum.

Let Them Hear It: Peaceful Protests Near The Homes Of Supreme Court Justices, Srikanth Reddy

Lewis & Clark Law Review

All of us—not just attorneys and politicians—need to be more critical and skeptical of the Supreme Court. Criticism by ordinary people is good and appropriate, even if it hurts the Justices’ feelings. That includes public protests. When a case matters enough to them, members of the public can and should criticize the Court and its Justices, including by peacefully gathering and protesting near a Justice’s home, or when a Justice appears out in the world.

Rethinking Courtroom Presence In The Virtual Era, Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Technological innovation has made virtual appearances by criminal defendants increasingly common. These appearances have advanced efficiency but also raised questions about the scope of both the right and the duty of defendants to be physically present in court. Should judges, for example, be allowed to hold virtual arraignments, even if a defendant wishes to appear in person? Can defendants opt for virtual appearances at will? While courts are beginning to address these questions, they have yet to develop a coherent framework to evaluate when virtual appearances are constitutional and appropriate. This Article seeks to contribute to this project by examining …

Extending Appellate Immigration Jurisdiction: Providing Additional Pathways Of Review For Discretionary Determinations Regarding Extraordinary Circumstances For Victims Of Spousal Abuse, Ayashah Anwar

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

INTRODUCTION: Lucila Magana-Magana lived a life marked by tragedy. At the age of fifteen, Lucila was sexually assaulted and became pregnant. As a young pregnant woman with no ability to leave, Lucila was forced to live with her assailant and had more children with him until his death. After several years on her own, she entered another relationship with her work supervisor, Rafael Camacho, but that relationship soon turned abusive. Camacho became addicted to drugs and alcohol, and eventually Lucila was forced to escape the relationship. Out of fear, Lucila fled Mexico to the United States. Once again, Lucila found …

Recalibrating Deference In Sentencing, Meghana Nemali

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) is responsible for promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in federal sentencing. In pursuit of this mandate, the Commission publishes the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), which are accompanied by official commentary. In Stinson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endowed the commentary with controlling authority. However, nearly three decades later, the Court in Kisor v. Wilkie granted courts greater discretion in deciding whether to defer to the commentary. Moreover, in 2024, the Court eliminated the absolute deference regime for administrative agency determinations in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. As a result, …

Statutory Interpretation In The Oklahoma Supreme Court: Making The Case For Modified Textualism, Mahak H. Merchant

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Abortion And State Taxes: Unexpected Parallelism, Eric Smith

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Textualist Reasoning And The Open Fields Doctrine: A Survey Of State-Constitutional Decisions, Ariel Krogue

BYU Law Review

State constitutions can, and often do, provide more extensive individual rights than the Federal Constitution affords. When this occurs, state courts frequently cite textual differences between the Federal Constitution and their own state constitutions to explain their departures from federal norms. But do textual differences between the Federal Constitution and state constitutions actually explain why some states offer more constitutional protection than the federal government does? When it comes to the Fourth Amendment’s open fields doctrine, the answer is no.

This Note provides a fifty-state survey of state-constitutional search and seizure provisions; it also identifies those states that have rejected …

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 …

Rekonstruksi Mekanisme Seleksi Hakim Konstitusi Di Indonesia, Indah Sri Pangestu, Dwi Yuliani, Hertaty Dorothy Dewi Siburian

Jurnal Konstitusi & Demokrasi

The mechanism for selection and election of constitutional judges in Indonesia currently still shows a diversity of procedures in each proposing institution, namely the Supreme Court, DPR and President. The process implemented does not fully reflect the principles of transparency, participation, objectivity and accountability as mandated in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the procedures for selection and selection of constitutional judges to ensure a more professional system and integrity. One of the solutions offered is the establishment of an independent institution responsible for the selection and recruitment of constitutional judges with a system …

Who Counts As A "Reasonable Employee"? The Third Circuit's Bungling Of Section 8(A)(1) Violations, Ben Milstein

Washington Law Review

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects private employees’ right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to self-organize labor unions, while section 8 outlines numerous unfair labor practices. Specifically, section 8(a)(1) bans employer interference, coercion, or restraint of any section 7 rights. In a 2022 case, FDRLST Media v. NLRB, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that FDRLST Media’s executive officer’s tweet constituted a section 8(a)(1) violation. This Comment examines the history of section 8(a)(1) violations, specifically discussing the widely …

A Dangerous Challenge To The Constitutionality Of The Felon-In-Possession Statute: United States V. Bullock, Matthew Matherne

MC Law Review

In United States v. Bullock, Judge Carlton Reeves held that the federal felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock. Although Mr. Bullock had been previously convicted of multiple violent felonies involving a firearm, including one that resulted in the death of an individual, Judge Reeves dismissed the charges because the government failed to establish a historical tradition of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Judge Reeves’ determination that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bullock is a decision that is not only “dangerous” to society, but it contradicts the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America. …

Not So Firmly Settled: How The Inconsistent Jurisprudence Of The Firm Resettlement Bar Serves As A Tool For Asylum Seeker Exclusion, Caroline V. Garrido

Fordham Law Review

The firm resettlement bar to asylum, designed to limit protections to those without refuge elsewhere, has become a source of inconsistency, confusion, and exclusion in U.S. asylum law. Circuit courts have adopted two different approaches for determining whether an asylum seeker has firmly resettled in a third country. Despite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ attempt to unify these approaches through the introduction of a burden-shifting framework, courts remain divided, and there is no clear guidance on what constitutes firm resettlement. This Note argues that this lack of guidance has led to inconsistent court holdings and interpretations that conflict with the …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Power, Tools, And Process: Some Reflections On Bankruptcy Minimalism, Edward J. Janger

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

In Unjust Debts: How Our Bankruptcy System Makes America More Unequal, Melissa Jacoby offers a brilliant and sweeping indictment of the way in which bankruptcy law is currently practiced in the United States. As she puts it, “This book is a story of falling out of love. With a law.” Like me, Professor Jacoby came of professional age, at the close of the first age of the Bankruptcy Code. Enacted in 1978, we both learned the statute in the mid-1990s, at a time when the transformative power of the 1978 Code was reaching its peak. On the business side, corporations …