Legal Remedies Commons^™

School Finance Litigation And The Separation Of Powers, Larry J. Obhof

Mitchell Hamline 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.

The “Law Of Ramsey County” – Reflections Of A Trial Judge On State Government Gridlock, Kathleen Gearin

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity In Original Actions Between States, Sandra B. Zellmer

Faculty Law Review Articles

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the US. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the …

Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming

Sanctuary Cities And The Trump Administration: The Practical Limits Of Federal Power, Joshua W. Dansby

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order with the supposed purpose of enhancing public safety of the interior of the United States. Part of the Administration’s plan includes threatening “sanctuary jurisdictions,” also known as “sanctuary cities,” with the loss of federal funds for failing to comply with federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373.

There are several problems with this plan: (1) there is no solid definition for what makes a city a “sanctuary;” (2) if we accept the Administration’s allusion that a sanctuary jurisdiction is one that “willfully” refuses to comply with 8 U.S.C. …

Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming

The Paragraph 20 Paradox: An Evaluation Of The Enforcement Of Ethical Rules As Substantive Law, Donald E. Campbell

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

This Article addresses an issue courts across the country continue to struggle with: When are ethics rules appropriately considered enforceable substantive obligations, and when should they only be enforceable through the disciplinary process? The question is complicated by the ethics rules themselves. Paragraph 20 of the Scope section of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct includes seemingly contradictory guidance; it states the Rules are not to be used to establish civil liability, but also that they can be “some evidence” of a violation of a lawyer’s standard of care. Most states have adopted this paradoxal Paragraph 20 language. Consequently, courts …

Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Is There A Better Alternative?, Emily Osmanski

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

As the world has transitioned from national; isolated economies with localized issues into a globalized and interconnected economy with cross-border disputes; the law has struggled to keep up. Recent trade negotiations have highlighted the difficulty states face in promoting trade; while also creating a fair; accessible; and equitable forum for producers and consumers with nationalities touching every area of the globe. For several decades; Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has been in place to address claims brought by foreign investors against the host states. External improvements have helped support foreign direct investment and the ISDS model of dispute resolution; such as …

When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner

Texas A&M Law Review

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …

The Failure Of International Law In Palestine, Svetlana Sumina, Steven Gilmore

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming

Curbing Remedies For Official Wrongs: The Need For Bivens Suits In National Security Cases, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Interim Relief: National Report For Canada, Trevor C. W. Farrow, Jonathan Silver

Articles & Book Chapters

Evolving litigation poses many challenges to litigants and their counsel before final adjudication. Canadian courts have fashioned various remedies to meet these challenges in order to preserve and maintain the court's authority to secure a just result.

United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …

Today's Porn: Not A Constitutional Right; Not A Human Right, Patrick Trueman

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

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 …

You're It: Tag Jurisdiction Over Corporations In Canada, Tanya Monestier

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Clarifying Uncertainty: Why We Need A Small Claims Copyright Court, John Zuercher

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This article is concerned with the question of whether copyright law in the United States is currently equipped to achieve its original goal, set within the U.S. Constitution, to promote innovation and progress. This article suggests that copyright law is not equipped to achieve this goal because a paradox inherent in copyright law is hindering copyright litigation and causing uncertainty. The paradox is found in 17 U.S.C. § 106, which protects transformative works that are derivative, and 17 U.S.C. § 107, which protects transformative works as fair use. Ideally, the federal courts would solve this dilemma by interpreting the appropriate …

Reforming Military Justice: An Analysis Of The Military Justice Act Of 2016, David A. Schlueter

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC §§ 801-946, is the statutory template for the United States' military justice system. The UCMJ addresses topics such as court-martial jurisdiction, and pretrial, trial, and appellate procedures. It also includes punitive articles which proscribe, not only common law offenses, but also offenses unique to the military. Congress made significant changes to the UCMJ in the Military Justice Act of 2016. The legislation not only amended a significant number of existing articles, but also added many new articles. In addition, Congress completely reorganized the punitive articles. In this article, Professor Schlueter addresses …

What If The International Criminal Court Could Prosecute President Al-Assad For The Chemical Weapon Attacks In Ghouta?, Paul Cho

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

The Function Of The International Court Of Justice In The World Community, Ernest A. Gross

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

International Mass Tort Litigation: Forum Non Conveniens And The Adequate Alternative Forum In Light Of The Bhopal Disaster, Stephen L. Cummings

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Routine Torture Practices Of The Saudi Arabian Government As "Commercial Activity" Within The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Of 1976 In The Wake Of Saudi Arabia V. Nelson, 113 S. Ct. 1471 (1993)., Keith D. Bodoh

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Difficult Situation Made Harder: A Parent's Choice Between Civil Remedies And Criminal Charges In International Child Abduction, Donyale N. Leslie

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules At 75: Dispute Resolution, Private Enforcement Or Decisions According To Law?, James R. Maxeiner

Georgia State University Law Review

This essay is a critical response to the 2013 commemorations of the75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced in 1938 to provide procedure to decide cases on their merits. The Rules were designed to replace decisions under the “sporting theory of justice”with decisions according to law.

By 1976, at midlife, it was clear that they were not achieving their goal. America’s proceduralists split into two sides about what to do. One side promotes rules that control and conclude litigation: e.g.,plausibility pleading, case management, limited discovery, cost indemnity for discovery, and summary …

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.

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court Continues Its Journey Down The Ever Narrowing Paths Of Section 1983 And The Due Process Clause: An Analysis Of Parratt V. Taylor, Robert E. Palmer

Pepperdine Law Review

After nearly a century of quiet slumber, the Supreme Court awoke the sleeping giant. In the past two decades, 42 U.S.C. §1983 has evolved into a judicial Frankenstein monster. Unable to control the beast, the Court has attempted to restrict the creature's movements by unnecessarily limiting its constitutional source. If followed to its logical conclusion, the Court's narrow reading of the Constitution may ultimately demote all due process violations to state tort remedies. This note traces the legislative and judicial evolution of section 1983 as well as the statute's present interaction with the due process clause. The vehicle for this …

The United States Government As Defendant - One Example Of The Need For A Uniform Liability Regime To Govern Outer Space And Space-Related Activities, Joseph A. Bosco

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.