Jurisdiction Commons^™

Change We Can Believe In: The Seventh Circuit's Exposure Of Inadequate Environmental Review In Protect Our Parks V. Buttigieg, P. Nicholas Greco

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

On The Fence About Immigration And Overpopulation: "Environmentalists" Challenge Dhs Policies On Nepa Basis In Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District V. Mayorkas, Maya J. Williams

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

The Advisory Jurisdiction Of The Constitutional Tribunal Under Article 100 Of The Constitution, Don Jia Hao Ho

Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon)

Singapore has a Constitutional Tribunal as provided for under Article 100 of the Constitution. The Tribunal is vested with advisory jurisdiction which ordinary courts do not have. This article explores the constitutional basis for the Tribunal’s existence, jurisdictional issues surrounding the Tribunal, as well as the legal effect of the Tribunal’s opinion. Moreover, this article evaluates the continued relevance of the Tribunal. In doing so, a comparative approach is adopted where appropriate.

Stephen’S Prudent Person And The Standard Of Proof In Indian Evidence Act Jurisdictions, Siyuan Chen

Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon)

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872 remains on the statute books of many Commonwealth jurisdictions. The contents of the statute have also remained largely intact. Unsurprisingly, then, there has been a growing chasm between what the statute provides for and how the common law rules on evidence have developed. However, the statute’s treatment of the concept of standard of proof has arguably been more sophisticated than what the courts have given credit for. In this article, it is argued that a return to the statute’s original conception of standard of proof will go some way in alleviating …

Oklahoma V. Castro-Huerta, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, And The Fundamental Freedom Of Sovereign Nations, Michael D.O. Rusco

Marquette Law Review

In addition to its stunning internal flaws, the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta exemplifies Indian law’s broader flaws as a jurisprudence. Castro-Huerta holds that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with federal and tribal governments over crimes by non-Indians against Indians on reservation lands. Justice Gorsuch deftly addresses many of the glaring internal flaws in Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, but not all. He does not dissect the hollow assertion that reservations are part of the surrounding state both geographically and politically. This cannot go unaddressed, particularly given its weak analysis, misguided use of precedent, and broader consequences.

Forum Fights And Fundamental Rights: Amenability’S Distorted Frame, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

Framing—the subtle use of context to suggest a conclusion—is a dubious alternative to direct argumentation. Both the brilliance and the bane of marketing, framing also creeps into supposedly objective analysis. Law offers several examples, but a lesser known one is International Shoe’s two-part jurisdictional test. The framing occurs in the underscoring of defendant’s due process rights contrasted with plaintiff’s “interests” which are often dependent on governmental interests. This equation ignores, both rhetorically and analytically, the injured party’s centuries-old rights to—not interests in—a remedy in an open and adequate forum.

Even within the biased frame, the test generally works, if not …

The Role Of United States V. Cooley And Mcgirt V. Oklahoma In Determining Criminal Jurisdiction In Indian Country, Prof. Dustin Jansen

Tribal Law Journal

Understanding jurisdiction is paramount to deciding whether federal, state, or tribal courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes committed in Indian country. The evolution of federal Indian law has created a legal landscape that is far from consistent. For the Indian law practitioner, it is important to stay abreast of the latest case law available to understand where proper jurisdiction lies. The latest cases of McGirt v. Oklahoma and United States v. Cooley are the newest case law available that demonstrate the Supreme Court’s reasoning and analysis in determining proper jurisdiction.

Experiments In Legal Hybridity: From Indian Tort Law To Tribal Tort Law, Noah T. Allaire

Tribal Law Journal

Tort law is a broad set of rules designed to compensate people who have suffered injuries and harm by imposing penalties on those who caused the resulting injuries and harm. Indian tort law is the limited set of rules that the United States imposed upon tribal nations over a century ago. Today, tribal courts have the important opportunity and responsibility to articulate tribal tort law. Tribal legislatures, in turn, can codify tribal tort rules to guide future judicial decisionmaking. Through this process, tribal tort law will gradually supplant Indian tort law. Articulating tribal tort law necessarily involves conducting experiments in …

Bureaucratic Overreach And The Role Of The Courts In Protecting Representative Democracy, Katie Cassady

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Although only four departments at the United States’ founding, the American bureaucracy has expanded to address nearly every issue of public life. While these agencies are ostensibly under congressional oversight through monetary allowance and the supervision of the President as part of the executive branch, they consistently usurp their discretionary authority and bypass the Founders’ design of legislative power vested solely in a bicameral legislature.

The Supreme Court holds an indispensable role in mitigating the overreach of bureaucratic agencies. However, despite their obligation to protect the rights of the American people, the courts’ inability to hold bureaucrats accountable has diluted …

A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’S Jurisprudence On Jurisdiction For Arbitration Matters, Kristen M. Blankley

University of Miami Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Badgerow v. Waters decision at- tempts to create a bright-line rule regarding access to federal courts to hear arbitration matters. On its face, the Badgerow majority opinion reads like a straightforward exercise in textualism. Badgerow interpreted the judicial test for jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision regarding vacatur differently than it interpreted the jurisdictional test for a motion to compel under a different part of the statute. However, Badgerow leaves courts, which were already struggling to decipher the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision of Vaden v. Discover Bank, with a significant number of outstanding questions. …

Two Countries In Crisis: Man Camps And The Nightmare Of Non-Indigenous Criminal Jurisdiction In The United States And Canada, Justin E. Brooks

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Thousands of Indigenous women and girls have gone missing or have been found murdered across the United States and Canada; these disappearances and killings are so frequent and widespread that they have become known as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Crisis (MMIW Crisis). Indigenous communities in both countries often lack the jurisdiction to prosecute violent crimes committed by non-Indigenous offenders against Indigenous victims on Indigenous land. Extractive industries—businesses that establish natural resource extraction projects—aggravate the problem by establishing temporary housing for large numbers of non-Indigenous, primarily male workers on or around Indigenous land (“man camps”). Violent crimes against Indigenous …

An Alternative To The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Bruce Ledewitz

Law Faculty Publications

One of the most momentous actions taken by the United States Supreme Court in the last term was not deciding a case but granting review at the end of the term in Moore v. Harper, the North Carolina congressional redistricting case. This is the case in which the Supreme Court appears likely to adopt some version of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine (Doctrine). In this essay, I will describe the actual case and the Doctrine. But I will also be offering an alternative to the Doctrine, one that I believe achieves some of the goals that the Justices who …

Just Choices? Judicial Selection, Ideology, And Partisanship In The Ohio Supreme Court, Margo D'Agostino

Undergraduate Honors Thesis Projects

This thesis joins the conversation on judicial selection and impacts on judicial ideology. This is a multifaceted question that engages with the history of judicial selection, differences between states, growing polarization and partisanship, and an influx in campaign spending that can all influence Justices’ behavior while on the bench. While other theorists have used more quantitative or statistical analytics, more research is still needed on the nuanced and qualitative questions surrounding the judiciary in the United States, especially on the state level. I look at three Ohio Supreme Court Justices—Maureen O’Connor, Jennifer Brunner, and Sharon Kennedy—and decisions they have penned …

The Exigency And How To Improve And Implement International Humanitarian Legislations More Advantageously In Times Of Both Cyber-Warfare And Cyberspace, Shawn J. Lalman

Doctoral Dissertations and Master's Theses

This study provides a synopsis of the following topics: the prospective limiters levied on cyber-warfare by present–day international legislation; significant complexities and contentions brought up in the rendering & utilization of International Humanitarian Legislation against cyber-warfare; feasible repercussions of cyber-warfare on humanitarian causes. It is also to be contended and outlined in this research study that non–state actors can be held accountable for breaches of international humanitarian legislation committed using cyber–ordnance if sufficient resources and skill are made available. It details the factors that prosecutors and investigators must take into account when organizing investigations into major breaches of humanitarian legislation …

Learning From Guantanamo: Avoiding Legal Black Holes In Outer Space, Mia Bonardi

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

"Legal black holes" are spaces beyond the reach of enforceable law and thus inflict people within their pull with "rightlessness." The term "legal black hole" arose originally around the Guantinamo Bay detention center, but it has since been used in other contexts, such as migrant drownings. There is a new frontier for legal black holes in the space beyond Earth. This topic is timely and pertinent to modern application because if places or spaces exist where fundamental laws cannot be applied or enforced, then such legal black holes undermine the rule of law.

This Article argues that outer space is, …

The Court And The Private Plaintiff, Elizabeth Beske

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Two seemingly irreconcilable story arcs have emerged from the Supreme Court over the past decade. First, the Court has definitively taken itself out of the business of creating private rights of action under statutes and the Constitution, decrying such moves as relics of an “ancient regime.” Thus, the Supreme Court has slammed the door on its own ability to craft rights of action under federal statutes and put Bivens, which recognized implied constitutional remedies, into an ever-smaller box. The Court has justified these moves as necessary to keep judges from overstepping their bounds and wading into the province of the …

Case Law On American Indians, Thomas P. Schlosser

American Indian Law Journal

An update on American Indian case law from September 2021-October 2022.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors & Indian Law Experts In Support Of Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Smith V. United States, Barbara L. Creel, Marc-Tizoc Gonzaléz, Verónica C. Gonzales

Faculty Scholarship

The decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, permitting the application of state criminal law to punish a tribal member whose alleged criminal conduct occurred on an Indian reservation and caused no harm to another person—solely based on the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13 is contrary to numerous treaties, acts of Congress, and foundational principles
/="/">of tribal sovereignty as construed and upheld by this Court’s federal Indian law jurisprudence. Allowing the Ninth Circuit decision to stand renders express
/="/">congressional authorizations and limitations on federal and state criminal jurisdiction over …

Fugitive Pull: Applying The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine To Foreign Defendants, Zachary Z. Schroeder

Washington Law Review

Defendants force courts to decide whether to use judicial time and resources to hear a case when they either flee or refuse to submit to jurisdiction. Judges in the United States possess an exceptional discretionary power to deny access to the courts in these circumstances through the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The fugitive disentitlement doctrine developed as federal common law and permits courts to exercise discretion in declining to hear appeals or motions from defendants classified as fugitives from justice.

Historically, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was intended to prevent courts from wasting resources adjudicating cases when a defendant has fled and …

Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi

Washington Law Review

Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …