Litigation Commons^™

Abortion Travel Restrictions Under The Dormant Commerce Clause After National Pork Producers Council V. Ross, Katherine Bartley

Fordham Law Review

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, twelve states have banned abortion entirely, and seven states have banned abortion earlier in pregnancy than the standard set in Roe v. Wade. As abortion access dwindles, patients increasingly cross state lines to seek reproductive healthcare. In response, antiabortion state officials and lawmakers have made efforts to restrict interstate travel for abortion care.

This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the judge-made doctrine in National Pork Producers Council v. …

When Prenatal Care Becomes A Crime, Casey Hunter

Fordham Law Review

For decades, pregnant women have increasingly faced criminalization for their actions and conduct during pregnancy, with Alabama emerging as a focal point due to its aggressive use of section 26-15-3.2: Chemical Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances Are Produced or Distributed. Originally intended to protect children from the dangers of methamphetamine labs, this law has been reinterpreted to prosecute pregnant women who test positive for controlled substances. Central to these prosecutions are positive drug tests obtained from prenatal health records, causing many women to avoid prenatal care for fear of legal consequences.

This Note …

“The Gun’S Not Mine!”: The Admissibility Of Defendants’ Exculpatory Hearsay Statements Under Federal Rules Of Evidence 803(2) & (3), Faustino S. Galante

Fordham Law Review Online

Exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants often warrant admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as excited utterances, under Rule 803(2), or as statements reflecting a then-existing state of mind, under Rule 803(3). Nevertheless, defendants often struggle to have their exculpatory statements admitted pursuant to these rules—even when those statements fulfill their categorical requirements.

This Comment surveys the different approaches courts take to determine whether exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants are admissible under Rules 803(2) and (3). It argues that courts too often misapply these rules to exclude defendants’ exculpatory statements. In particular, courts counteract the …

Brief Of Civil Procedure Professors Suzette Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, And Doug Rendleman As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents: Trump V. Casa, Trump V. Washington & Trump V. New Jersey, Suzette M. Malveaux, Alan Trammell, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

Nationwide injunctions are constitutional. Their core feature—courts’ power to render decisions that directly benefit nonparties—is consistent with traditional equitable practices. Accordingly, the Article III “judicial power” comprehends such remedies. Nationwide injunctions also comport with Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, including constitutional standing.

Broad remedies are sometimes necessary, especially when government actors willfully disregard people’s rights, and the usual tools of aggregate litigation (such as class actions) are not practically available to vindicate those rights. Moreover, courts can readily navigate prudential concerns about nationwide injunctions, from fears of judge shopping to prematurely freezing the law. Courts remain attuned to these concerns, and …

Why Did The Irs Restart Transfer Pricing Litigation?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In his excellent recent article on Coca-Cola’s appeal of its transfer pricing defeat in the Tax Court, Tax Notes contributing editor Ryan Finley explains that Coca-Cola’s main argument is based on the idea that “the IRS led the company into an ambush.” In 1996 the IRS entered into a closing agreement with Coca-Cola that provided that for the 1987 through 1995 tax years, the division of profits between Coca-Cola and its foreign “supply points” (the subsidiaries responsible for mixing the secret formula) would be based on a 10 percent return to the subsidiary and that any profit above that would …

Ai-Generated Content And Copyright Infringement: Analyzing Corporate Liability In The Era Of Artificial Intelligence, Gloria Domingos, Dr. Daria Koucherets

Seattle University Law Review Online

Recent lawsuits by major content creators against artificial intelligence companies have brought a critical legal question to the forefront: Under current U.S. copyright law, can AI companies be held liable for direct copyright infringement when their systems generate outputs that substantially mirror protected works? This question has gained particular urgency as AI systems like ChatGPT and DALL-E demonstrate increasingly sophisticated capabilities to generate content that may replicate elements of copyrighted materials.

The answer, based on current legal precedent and statutory frameworks, is that AI companies can likely be held liable for direct copyright infringement. However, traditional tests for establishing such …

Changemakers : Brandon Potter : L'25 : From The State House To The Court House, Andrew Clark

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Implicit Bias Within The Primary Assumption Of Risk Doctrine, Tracy Catapano-Fox

Brooklyn Law Review

This Article addresses the efficacy of the primary assumption of risk doctrine, and the improper extension of the doctrine to vitiate a plaintiff’s ability to obtain recourse in personal injury cases. When the New York legislature enacted the comparative negligence standard in 1975, it essentially revoked the applicability of the primary assumption of risk doctrine as a defense in tort litigation. However, the courts continued to apply the primary assumption of risk doctrine in tort cases involving sports or physical activity, analyzing it as an element of a defendant’s duty and serving as a complete bar to recovery for plaintiffs …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

Hindsight Is 20/20: Epilepsy Is Not One-Size-Fits-All, Raika Kim

Northwestern University Law Review

For many, epilepsy is one of the first conditions that come to mind when thinking of a disability, and for good reason: over 50 million people in the world live with epilepsy. Yet misunderstandings about epilepsy have perpetuated social stigma surrounding the disability for centuries. Ableist beliefs led to the passage of laws in the 1900s condoning—and in some cases, requiring—sterilization of individuals with epilepsy and restriction of their right to marry. Even today, state driving laws, justified as promoting public safety, categorically prevent anyone diagnosed with epilepsy from driving unless they are seizure free for an arbitrary, nonuniform period …

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

The Renaissance Of Private Law, Yotam Kaplan, Adi Libson, Gideon Parchomovsky

Northwestern University Law Review

Crisis is the new normal. Between global warming, the opioid pandemic, bursts of gun violence, and political instability fueled by fake news, it is hard to remember a time when we were not facing a major catastrophe. Still more troubling, there is a growing sense that our political and regulatory institutions are faltering in their ability to offer effective responses to the incoming crises. The rapid pace at which new problems emerge—together with growing political polarization—stymies regulatory and legislative action, resulting in an inability to address contemporary challenges.

Against this gloomy background, we posit an unlikely hero: private law. Recent …

Challenging Race-Based Health Care Discrimination: A New Private Right Of Action, Aaron Pinkett

Northwestern University Law Review

The Hippocratic Oath calls on doctors to “do no harm.” Yet we know from extensive public health research that clinicians repeatedly cause harm to Black patients by dismissing their medical concerns, misdiagnosing them, and undertreating their pain. These practices of differential treatment for Black patients have led to steadily increasing racial disparities in health care outcomes throughout the United States. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits this type of disparate impact, but modern Supreme Court jurisprudence forecloses opportunities for affected parties to seek legal relief—despite the clearly established legislative intent of Title VI. However, another legal …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Scholars For The Advancement Of Children’S Constitutional Rights And Students Engaged In Advancing Texas In Support Of Respondents: Mahmoud V. Taylor, Catherine E. Smith, Tanya Washington, Jeremiah Chin, Sarah Medina Camiscoli, Travis F. Chance

Scholarly Articles

Amici are members of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas and United States legal scholars of children and the law, education law, family law, and anti-discrimination law.

Students Engaged in Advancing Texas is a nonprofit organization founded by young people to develop civic leadership and belonging and represents students of various faiths and identities who have an interest in the outcome of this case.

Amici draw this Court’s attention to the constitutional harms that public school students and LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ parents would bear should the Court grant Petitioners’ injunctive relief.

Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings V. Davis: Brief Of Civil Procedure And Complex Litigation Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Maureen Carroll

Appellate Briefs

Amici are law professors with expertise in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Together, we share an interest in ensuring that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are construed “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.