Jurisdiction Commons^™

Reflections On The Effects Of Federalism On Opioid Policy, Matthew B. Lawrence

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Morrison V. National Australia Bank And The Growth Of The Global Securities Class Action Under The Dutch Wcam, Steven Mcnamara

Buffalo Law Review

In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally reset the jurisdictional sweep of U.S. securities law in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. No longer could foreign plaintiffs access the U.S. courts if a defendant engaged in conduct in the U.S. affecting securities prices outside the U.S., or conduct outside the U.S. had a significant effect on securities prices inside the U.S. Under Morrison’s new “transactional test” only purchasers of securities on a U.S. exchange or in a U.S. transaction would be able to bring securities fraud claim under Section 10(b). The Morrison decision therefore greatly heightens the importance of alternative non-U.S. …

Terrible Touhy: Navigating Judicial Review Of An Agency's Response To Third-Party Subpoenas, Zoe Niesel

Cardozo Law Review

The question of judicial review of a federal agency's response to a third-party subpoena is highly litigated, and yet barely addressed in academic literature. For seventy years, this issue has been governed by the Supreme Court's holding in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, a case that spawned its own vocabulary, its own legal doctrine, and its own circuit split. The confusion has left four circuit courts entrenched, the remainder waffling and the district courts largely on their own to sort out a workable standard.

This Article establishes that the circuit courts' approaches to judicial review of an agency's …

Personal Jurisdiction And National Sovereignty, Ray Worthy Campbell

Washington and Lee Law Review

State sovereignty, once seemingly sidelined in personal jurisdiction analysis, has returned with a vengeance. Driven by the idea that states must not offend rival states in their jurisdictional reach, some justices have looked for specific targeting of individual states as individual states by the defendant in order to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. To allow cases to proceed based on national targeting alone, they argue, would diminish the sovereignty of any state that the defendant had specifically targeted.

This Article looks for the first time at how this emphasis on state sovereignty limits national sovereignty, especially where alien defendants …

Drones: Where Does The National Airspace System Start?, Jason T. Lorenzon J.D.

National Training Aircraft Symposium (NTAS)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Aeronautical Vehicles (UAV), drones and Personal Aerial Vehicles (PAV) constitute the greatest technological advancement since the jet age. (Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation, October 26, 2017) This technological advancement has prompted significant public policy challenges and the need for new laws regarding navigable airspace. This proposal investigates how airspace used by drones will evolve given existing Constitutional and common law principals. These principals will influence the creation, development and modification of UAS airspace regulations by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Two critical but unanswered questions concerning the National Airspace System, are where does navigable airspace …

Finding A “Home” For Unincorporated Entities Post-Daimler Ag V. Bauman, Susan Gilles, Angela Upchurch

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Knock On Knick'S Revival Of Federal Takings Litigation, Stewart Sterk, Michael C. Pollack

Articles

In Knick v. Township of Scott, the United States Supreme Court held that a landowner who claimed to have suffered a taking at the hands of state or local officials could seek redress in federal court without the need to first seek compensation through state proceedings. This holding raises serious theoretical and practical concerns. On the theoretical side, Knick rests on the implicit assumption that states separate powers among branches of government in the same way the federal government does. It also relies on a second assumption: that relegating taking claims to state court makes them unique. Neither is …

The Case Of Palestine Against The Usa At The Icj: A Non-Starter Or Precedent-Setter?, Md. Rizwanul Islam

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Vertical Stare Decisis And Three-Judge District Courts, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Three-judge federal district courts have jurisdiction over many issues central to our democratic system, including constitutional challenges to congressional and legislative districts, as well as to certain federal campaign-finance statutes. They are similarly responsible for enforcing key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Litigants often have the right to appeal their rulings directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of this unusual appellate process, courts and commentators disagree on whether such three-judge district court panels are bound by circuit precedent or instead are free to adjudicate these critical issues constrained only by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The applicability of court …

Law School News: 'Injustice Dehumanizes Everyone It Touches' 1-31-2020, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The 15th Annual Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Keynote Address 1-28-2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michael M. Bowden, Andrea Hansen

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Internet Extraterritoriality: Has Canada Reached Too Far Beyond Its Borders?, Sydney Wilson

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Institutional Loyalty And The Design Of Partisan Gerrymandering Adjudication In The Federal Courts, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In 2019 the Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that challenges in federal court to partisan gerrymandering were nonjusticiable political questions. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that frequently deciding such cases would politicize the Court itself. Such expressions seem to fit well within the characterization of the Chief Justice as an institutionalist concerned with the legitimacy and reputation of the federal courts. This article addresses how the unique design and procedures of gerrymandering litigation in federal courts ought to inform such institutional loyalty arguments. Those features include that such cases are litigated …

Solving The Emerging Technology And National Security Conundrum, Shabbir Hamid

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

The Friendly Skies Are Not Always So Friendly, Rachel Reid

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Retroactive Adjudication, Samuel Beswick

All Faculty Publications

This Article defends the retroactive nature of judicial lawmaking. Recent Supreme Court judgments have reignited debate on the retroactivity of novel precedent. When a court announces a new rule, does it apply only to future cases or also to disputes arising in the past? This Article shows that the doctrine of non-retroactive adjudication offers no adequate answer. In attempting to articulate a law of non-retroactivity, the Supreme Court has cycled through five flawed frame-works. It has variously characterized adjudicative non-retroactivity as (1) a problem of legal philosophy; (2) a discretionary exercise for balancing competing right and reliance interests; (3) a …

"Spain For The Spaniards": An Examination Of The Plunder & Polemic Restitution Of The Salamanca Papers, Emily T. Behzadi

Faculty Scholarship

Throughout the Spanish Civil War, General Francisco Franco assembled numerous task forces to seize thousands of documents, photographs, prints, and artworks from private citizens and institutions that were politically adverse to his totalitarian regime. The majority of these so-called “Salamanca Papers” were taken from Catalonia, an autonomous community with a particularly contentious history with the Spanish government. Under existing principles of Spanish and international law, it is difficult to determine whether the Spanish State or Catalonia are the bona fide owners of this historical archive. The case over the ownership of the Salamanca Papers is one rarely discussed outside of …

Overview: Will Great Power Politics Threaten Arctic Sustainability?, Yoon Hyung Kim, Oran R. Young, Robert W. Corell, Lawson W. Brigham, Jong Deog Kim, Arild Moe, Charles E. Morrison, David Vanderzwaag

Reports & Public Policy Documents

The eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States) wish to maintain a position of preeminence when it comes to dealing with matters of Arctic Ocean governance. However, major non-Arctic states, while recognizing the sovereign rights of the coastal states in their economic zones and on their continental shelves, have growing interests in the maritime Arctic relating to activities such as commercial shipping, oil and gas development, fishing and ship-based tourism. They are increasingly claiming to have a legitimate interest in being consulted when it comes to addressing matters relating to the …

Tiptoeing Through The Landmines: The Evolution Of States’ Legal Ethics Authority Regarding Representing Cannabis Clients, Karen E. Boxx

Seattle University Law Review

Despite the continued federal classification of cannabis as an illegal drug, states have legalized the possession, use, production, and sale of cannabis. In order to do so, the states have created complex regulatory schemes to control and monitor the cannabis industry and satisfy the federal government concerns, such as use by minors and organized crime involvement. First, this Article presents the ethical dilemma of cannabis lawyering. Second, this Article describes the history, evolution, and current status of the various states’ pronouncements on a lawyer’s ethical duties with respect to the business and use of cannabis that may be legal under …

Unfair-But-Not-Deceptive: Confronting The Ambiguity In Washington State’S Consumer Protection Act, Emily Beale

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment will argue that Washington state courts must promulgate a new, workable definition of “unfair-but-not-deceptive” under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. Washington courts have acknowledged that a business act or practice can be unfair but not deceptive, but a simple recognition does not fulfill the liberal intentions of the Consumer Protection Act. By continuously declining to define unfair- but-not-deceptive, Washington courts have left consumers vulnerable and without recourse. This Comment will highlight the approaches developed by the federal government and other state governments on how to confront the ambiguity of unfair-but-not-deceptive and will propose a concrete definition for the term.