Legislation Commons^™

Equitable Relief For Private Rico Plaintiffs: Using Donziger To Remedy Courthouse Corruption, Anna Hanke

Journal of Law and Policy

In Chevron Corp. v. Steven Donziger, the Southern District of New York granted Chevron an injunction against Donziger under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, preventing the enforcement of an Ecuadorean judgment against it in the United States. This Note discusses the circuit court split on whether injunctive relief may be granted in a civil RICO suit, arguing that injunctive relief is an available remedy within the statute’s plain meaning, legislative intent, and evolving jurisprudence of civil RICO. The Note applies the Donziger interpretation of RICO to a case of a similarly corrupted judgment, Caperton v. A.T. Massey …

Free Agency: The Constitutionality Of Methods That Influence A Presidential Elector’S Ability To Exercise Personal Judgment, Zachary J. Shapiro

Journal of Law and Policy

When the Constitution of the United States went into effect on March 4, 1789, it established a new, hybrid form of government. As such, it created a complex and multifaceted process of electing our nation’s chief executive. Most notably, it granted states the power to choose a slate of presidential electors to debate the qualifications of the candidates selected by the voters. In recent history, however, certain states have established laws that severely limit the ability of presidential electors to exercise their right to vote for the candidates that they believe to be the best choice to sit in the …

Understanding Wellness International Network, Ltd. V. Sharif: The Problems With Allowing Parties To Impliedly Consent To Bankruptcy Court Adjudication Of Stern Claims, Elizabeth Jackson

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

The 2011 Supreme Court case Stern v. Marshall defined which claims bankruptcy courts had the authority to adjudicate, but it’s complicated holding left lower courts perplexed. Specifically, the Stern decision created “Stern claims”—claims that bankruptcy courts have the statutory, but not the constitutional, authority to adjudicate. Subsequent cases, such as Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison and Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, have grappled with whether Stern claims should be treated as “core” claims, which bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments on, or “non-core” claims, which bankruptcy courts can only enter final judgments on if the litigating parties consent. …

Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The claim of this brief Essay is that Chief Justice [John Roberts]’s approach to statutory interpretation exhibits a “Burkean minimalism” that seeks to reduce [the] seismic effect of the Court’s decisions. In particular, the Chief Justice is drawn toward statutory interpretations that avoid constitutional questions and preserve legislative enactments against constitutional challenge. Avoiding disruption is not an unyielding imperative, as the Chief Justice is sometimes willing to join broad judgments with significant effects. Avoiding disruption does, however, appear to be among the Chief Justice’s preferences when deciding cases, and when interpreting federal statutes in particular.

This abstract has been adapted …

The Roberts Court And The New Textualism, Anton Metlitsky

Cardozo Law Review

The article explores the Roberts Court's approach to statutory interpretation, focusing on its adherence to the "new textualism," a methodology emphasizing the plain meaning of statutory text. While recent cases like King v. Burwell, Bond v. United States, and Yates v. United States appear to prioritize statutory purpose over textual meaning, the Court's reasoning reinforces its commitment to textualism by framing decisions within textualist methodology, even when outcomes seem to depart from strict textual interpretation.

Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction, Jonathan H. Adler

Cardozo Law Review

The article examines Chief Justice John Roberts' approach to statutory interpretation, characterizing it as a form of "Burkean minimalism." This approach prioritizes judicial restraint, avoiding disruptive outcomes and maintaining stability in the law, even if it requires departing from the plain meaning of statutory text. Roberts' decisions often reflect a pragmatic willingness to reinterpret statutes to prevent significant disruptions, uphold legislative enactments, and preserve constitutional harmony, rather than adhering strictly to textualist or doctrinal purity.

What Lurks Below Beckles, Leah Litman, Shakeer Rahman

Articles

This Essay argues that if the Supreme Court grants habeas relief in Beckles v. United States, then it should spell out certain details about where a Beckles claim comes from and who such a claim benefits. Those details are not essential to the main question raised in the case, but the federal habeas statute takes away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear just about any case that would raise those questions. For that reason, this Essay concludes that failing to address those questions now could arbitrarily condemn hundreds of prisoners to illegal sentences and lead to a situation where the …

Incomplete Sentences: Hobby Lobby’S Corporate Religious Rights, The Criminally Culpable Corporate Soul, And The Case For Greater Alignment Of Organizational And Individual Sentencing, Kenya J.H. Smith

Louisiana Law Review

The article explores the history and policies that explain the disparate sentencing treatment of organizations and individuals under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and attendant sentencing guidelines. It reports the Supreme Court's recognition of a business corporation's religious rights in the case "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc."

Superfund Chaos Theory: What Happens When The Lower Federal Courts Don't Follow The Supreme Court, Steven Ferrey

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

There is legal chaos in the national Superfund. The Supreme Court reversed decisions of eleven federal circuit courts in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. There is no instance in modern Supreme Court history where the Court reversed every federal circuit court in the country, as it did in Atlantic Research. The Supreme Court’s reversal was through a unanimous decision. This was extraordinary: It not only reversed the entire legal interpretation of one of America’s most critical statutes, but also re-allocated billions of dollars among private parties.

The Supreme Court, when it rendered its decision, seemed to be rectifying a …

Defining Ambiguity In Broken Statutory Frameworks And Its Limits On Agency Action, Amanda Urban

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

“The Problem” occurs when a statute’s provisions become contradictory or unworkable in the context of new or unforeseen phenomena, yet the statute mandates agency action. The application of an unambiguous statutory provision may become problematic or unclear. Similarly, unambiguous provisions may become inconsistent given a particular application of the statute. During the same term, in Scialabba and UARG, the Supreme Court performed a Chevron review of agency interpretations of statutes facing three variations of the Problem, which this Note characterizes as direct conflict, internal inconsistency, and unworkability. In each case, the Court defined ambiguity in various, nontraditional ways and …

The Modern Treaty-Executing Power: Constitutional Complexities In Contemporary Global Governance, Carlo Felizardo

Northwestern University Law Review

Treaties have evolved significantly since the ratification of the United States Constitution, leading to uncertainty as to the constitutional limits on their domestic execution. This Note adapts existing constitutional doctrine on treaty execution to two distinct complications arising in the contemporary treaty regime. First, voluntary treaties imposing aspirational obligations on signatories raise the issue of the extent of obligations that Congress may domestically enforce by federal statute. Second, originating treaties which create international organizations and authorize them to adopt rule- and adjudication-type post-treaty pronouncements bring up a question of when, if ever, to incorporate those pronouncements into U.S. law, and …

Jurisdiction And Resentencing: How Prosecutorial Waiver Can Offer Remedies Congress Has Denied, Leah Litman, Luke C. Beasley

Articles

This Essay is about what prosecutors can do to ensure that prisoners with meritorious legal claims have a remedy. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) imposes draconian conditions on when prisoners may file successive petitions for post-conviction review (that is, more than one petition for post-conviction review). AEDPA’s restrictions on post-conviction review are so severe that they routinely prevent prisoners with meritorious claims from vindicating those claims.

Foreign Nation Judgments - If State Law Provides For The Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments, The Judgment Is Enforceable Without Determination Of Whether The Arbitration Award On Which It Is Based Is Independently Enforceable Under The Convention On The Recognition And Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Awards, John W. Kindt

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

United States Obligations Under Status Of Forces Agreements: A New Method Of Extradition?, William J. Norton

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Mariculture: A New Ocean Use, J. Owens Smith, David L. Marshall

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …

“Criminal Records” - A Comparative Approach, Sigmund A. Cohn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Recent Decision: Constitutional Law - Restriction Of American Citizens’ Right Of Access To Information And Ideas In The Court Of Government Control Of Immigration Is Not Unconstitutional When Supported By A Facially Legitimate Reason, W. P. Bishop, Joseph C. Vanzant

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The One Exhibition The Roots Of The Lgbt Equality Movement One Magazine & The First Gay Supreme Court Case In U.S. History 1943-1958, Joshua R. Edmundson

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations

The ONE Exhibition explores an era in American history marked by intense government sponsored anti-gay persecution and the genesis of the LGBT equality movement. The study begins during World War II, continues through the McCarthy era and the founding of the nation’s first gay magazine, and ends in 1958 with the first gay Supreme Court case in U.S. history.

Central to the story is ONE The Homosexual Magazine, and its founders, as they embarked on a quest for LGBT equality by establishing the first ongoing nationwide forum for gay people in the U.S., and challenged the government’s right to engage …

A Fourth Amendment Framework For The Free Exercise Clause, Adam Lamparello

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Clarence Thomas, Fisher V. University Of Texas, And The Future Of Affirmative Action In Higher Education, Scott D. Gerber

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Redefining The Rico Statute: Potential Avenues For Improvement, David Scouten

Senior Honors Theses

The civil application of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has been misapplied by the lower courts, but the statute can be improved by incorporating elements that will make the statute a better tool for justice. It is evident from examining the procedural limitations of the statute and important case law that the securities fraud gap, terrorism financing, and difficulties for indirect victims are three critical subjects that need to be addressed by enhancing RICO. Flaws and shortcomings of the RICO statute have led to inconsistencies in court rulings. The expansive language of RICO can be limited to …

Military Mothers And Claims Under The Federal Tort Claims Act For Injuries That Occur Pre-Birth, Tara Willke

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In order to right a longstanding wrong perpetrated against military mothers and their children, the Court should grant review in Ortiz v. United States ex rel. Evans Army Community Hospital. Part I of this Essay provides a brief discussion of the FTCA and the Feres doctrine. Part II discusses the facts and holding in Ortiz and its rejection of the approaches taken in other circuits involving pregnant service members and pre-birth injuries, which has caused a clear split in the circuits. Part III argues that these types of claims are not subject to the Feres doctrine because pregnancy and …

The Emergence Of Contextually Constrained Purposivism, Michael C. Mikulic

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This Case Comment first outlines the various methods of statutory construction used by the Supreme Court throughout its history, leading up to the Court’s implementation of contextually constrained purposivism in King v. Burwell. It then provides a summary of the facts and procedural history of King, thereby setting the stage to explain how the Court invoked contextually constrained purposivism. Finally, the Case Comment discusses some of the positive and negative implications of the approach.

Navigating The Unknown: Why Scotus Ought To Again Affirm That Achieving True Diversity In Higher Education Is A Compelling Interest That Satisfies Strict Scrutiny When It Rehears Fisher, Kenrick Frank Roberts

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

On June 29th, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to once again hear oral arguments in Fisher. This decision is troubling to supporters of Affirmative Action policies because of the Court's indistinguishable motivation for hearing the case a second time. This Note argues that theCourt must continue to allow race-based considerations in higher education admissions policies. Part I takes a look at the beginnings of affirmative action and the effects of past discrimination on the educational attainment of minorities. Part II charts the case law related to affirmative action in higher education. Part III tracks how the meaning of narrowly-tailored has …

History, Heller, And High-Capacity Magazines: What Is The Proper Standard Of Review For Second Amendment Challenges?, Lindsay Colvin

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Great Gun Control War Of The Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today, David B. Kopel

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gun Control After Heller And Mcdonald: What Cannot Be Done And What Ought To Be Done, Gary Kleck

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Skilling Reconsidered: The Legislative-Judicial Dynamic, Honest Services, Fraud, And The Ill-Conceived "Clean Up Government Act", J. Kelly Strader

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie Rose O'Sullivan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.