Jurisdiction Commons^™

50 Years Of Constitutional Judicial Review In The United Arab Emirates: Key Features, Nisrine Abiad

Proche-Orient, Études juridiques

On the 50th anniversary of the enshrinement of judicial review within the UAE Constitution, this paper explores its main features. The analysis of the constitutional provisions and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court reveals that constitutional judicial review in the UAE is intrinsically rooted in federalism as it is mainly designed as a tool preserving the adjudication of powers between federal and local authorities. It is nevertheless also destined by the Constitution for a wider purpose of constitutional justice endorsing the individuals and the courts as key players in its process.

Recognition Without Authority? Why Vesting Government Recognition In The U.N. Credentials Committee Would Be A Mistake, Jorge Barrera-Rojas

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

When the legitimacy of a government is contested, courts, regional bodies, and states each decide independently who speaks for the state in law. In Recognition Rules, Justin Cole, Alaa Hachem, and Oona Hathaway argue that this fragmentation imposes real costs and propose to cure them by empowering the U.N. Credentials Committee to issue binding determinations of governmental authority across all international law contexts. This Article argues that, beyond Charter obstacles to such a reform, it would be a mistake. The effective-control criterion rewards actors who seize power by force over governments that retain democratic legitimacy; binding credentials decisions would …

Which Place Governs A Placeless Place: Predicting Jurisdiction In The Metaverse, Morrease Leftwich

University of Miami Business Law Review

Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous characterization of legal study as “prediction” takes on renewed significance as courts confront novel jurisdictional questions in blockchain cases, particularly as technological innovation accelerates and transforms the digital landscape. Among these developments is the metaverse, which combines blockchain financial technology with early visions of the internet as a distinct realm for social interaction.

Concrete problems already emerging in these immersive environments underscore the stakes: Platform‑engineered anonymity and scale make user‑to‑user harms effectively unpoliceable, what recent work calls the “veil of scale,” frustrating redress even when laws apply. Amid this difficulty in identifying bad actors, scholars have …

A Tale Of Two Credits: The Post-Nestlé Alien Tort Statute And Carbon Credit Externalities, Stephanie Mao

Northwestern University Law Review

As companies increasingly embrace carbon-neutrality commitments, many rely on the voluntary carbon market to offset their emissions rather than reduce them directly. Regulatory and consumer scrutiny has focused on the widespread use of “phantom” carbon credits, i.e., credits that fail to produce meaningful climate benefits. But less attention has been paid to what this Note terms “colonial” carbon credits: those that may technically reduce emissions but do so at the expense of communities abroad. These projects may contribute to land dispossession, human rights abuses, and threats to public and environmental health. Yet, current regulatory and legal frameworks, with their focus …

The Ex Parte Young Cause Of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside An Enigma, Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, John W. Tienken

Northwestern University Law Review

Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.

Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte …

Leeds V. Norfolk Southern Railway Company—In Undoing Late Removal, District Court Gives Guidance On Evaluating Whether Defendants Were Joined In “Bad Faith”, Geoffrey D. Kearney

SLU Law Journal Online

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants typically have one year to remove to federal court a case filed in state court. The landscape for removal changed somewhat with a 2011 amendment to this statute, which extends that one-year deadline upon a showing “that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

But the question of what sort of conduct satisfies this provision persists. Since its passage, courts—primarily district courts—have grappled with just what it means for a plaintiff to act in bad faith to thwart removal. Leeds v. Norfolk Southern …

Asarco Delenda Est, John Greabe

West Virginia Law Review

ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish is the most important Supreme Court decision addressing the adjudication in state courts of federal claims that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirements would bar lower federal courts from hearing. But there are two serious problems with the reasoning of ASARCO: one involving an error of omission and the other an error of commission. ASARCO’s error of omission is its apparent assumption that a party barred from asserting a federal claim in federal court because of a lack of redressable Article III injury caused by the conduct complained of should face no barriers to obtaining relief on the …

The Territorial Continuum: American Samoa, Criminal Adjudication, And Territorial Administration, Emmanuel Hiram Arnaud

Cardozo Law Review

The standard account of American territorial expansion posits that territorial acquisition moved along a spectrum of sovereignty. The federal government acquired new inhabited land through conquest or purchase, and the Constitution tasked Congress with organizing and administering the new territories until they were ready to become states. That pattern came to an abrupt halt in 1898 when, at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, the Supreme Court, fearing the extension of citizenship to and the permanent integration of non-White populations into the American polity, suddenly pronounced that the Constitution authorized the holding of colonies. The Court thus sentenced new territories, …

Selective Flexibility: The Hidden Evolution Of Startup Corporate Law, Alvaro Pereira

Cardozo Law Review

This Article challenges the longstanding assumption that corporate law is largely irrelevant to non-listed companies and venture capital ( “VC”). Through a novel cross-country legal index covering twenty years and twelve jurisdictions, this Article shows that corporate laws have evolved through a process of “selective flexibility,” where certain legal barriers to VC deals are lifted, while others are stealthily preserved. For example, numerous reforms have enabled multiple-vote shares, but few have authorized the customization of board powers, limiting the universe of founder-investor agreements—and, ultimately, the development of startup ecosystems and VC markets.

Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of billion -dollar …

The Vanishing Enforcer: Consumer Protection In An Era Of Dual Retrenchment, Alisher Juzgenbayev

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent developments, including reductions in the federal workforce, effective suspension of certain enforcement activities, and attempted centralization of independent agency rulemaking in the White House, have significantly weakened administrative agencies. This administrative retrenchment is concerning as private enforcement of a number of consumer protection statutes has been simultaneously curtailed through the Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which dramatically narrowed plaintiffs’ standing. These decisions rely in part on a vision of strong executive authority, positing that broad private standing conflicts with an Article II framework where a politically accountable President faithfully implements laws …

To Vacate Or Not To Vacate: Partial Remedies And Mootness In Federal Habeas Of State Convictions, Jeffrey Greenbaum

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This Article addresses two related issues in the federal habeas of state convictions. First, it analyzes a circuit split that recently emerged over whether a state’s appeal would be moot after a federal district court grants habeas and a state vacates its own judgment. One view is that the state vacatur would render the appeal moot because the prisoner is no longer in custody. A second view is that the appeal would not necessarily be moot because a partial remedy could be available. Second, this Article identifies some courts conflating the language of a state’s vacatur in habeas and evaluates …

A Giving Tree Approach: Balancing Transparency And The Deliberative Process In Judicial Review, Anteo W. Chevere

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Sea Changes In Sue-And-Settle Policy: The Tides Of Transparency And Expediency, Evan B. Fitzgerald

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Three Bites Of The Apple, Jeffery M. Kadet, Philip L. Jezzi, Brian J. Visalli, David G. Chamerlain, Stephen L. Curtis, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In her latest letter, “A Second Bite at the Apple,” Kimberly Blanchard repeats her recent criticisms of the September 2024 EU Court of Justice decision concerning two Irish-incorporated Apple subsidiaries. Her letter title, which of course inspired the title of this article, and her explanations recall the 1967 MGM comedy Three Bites of the Apple, in which a helpful stranger offers elaborate explanations for why taxes need not be paid. In the film, and perhaps in this exchange as well, the relevant question is who ultimately benefits from the arrangement.

This exchange began with professor Philip Laroma Jezzi article reassessing …

By Fair Means: The Inapplicability Of Bristol-Myers Squibb To Flsa Collective Action Lawsuits, Paige Maxa

Washington Law Review

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed by Congress in 1938, sets federal workplace standards and protects over 100 million workers in the United States. The FLSA also includes a collective action provision, which allows workers to privately sue their employers for FLSA violations in a unique way. A collective action lawsuit is a distinct form of aggregate litigation that allows an employee to sue their employer for FLSA violations on behalf of other similarly situated employees in one action. Similarly situated employees who wish to join a collective action must affirmatively opt in and consent to participate in the …

Post-Chevron Deference In Asylum Proceedings, Shawn E. Fields

Cardozo Law Review

The Supreme Court held for four decades that Chevron deference should apply in all immigration proceedings. How, then, will asylum proceedings change in a post-Chevron world? When, and under what circumstances, will courts continue to defer to the findings of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)? And why does it matter? This Article answers those questions.

These issues require urgent examination for three reasons. First, they directly confront an issue pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Without the protection of Chevron insulating BIA decisions from meaningful judicial review, can certain legal questions like …

Section 302(A)'S "Arising From" Nexus Element: Need For A Tune-Up In The Aftermath Of Ford Motor?, Michael J. Hutter

Pace Law Review

This article traces the historical development of the “arising out of” and “relate to” nexus requirements, examines the evolution of state long- arm statutes following International Shoe Co., and analyzes the origins and judicial interpretation of C.P.L.R. § 302(a). It argues that New York’s statutory scheme no longer fully reflects the constitutional scope of specific jurisdiction as articulated by the Supreme Court. The article concludes by proposing a legislative amendment to C.P.L.R. 302(a) to add the phrase “relate to,” thereby aligning New York’s long-arm statute with Due Process and better effectuating the statute’s underlying purpose of affording New York residents …

The Regulatory Framework For Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution: Revisiting The Dispute Resolution Triangle, Yun Zhao, Zhiming Xiao

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR) constitutes a transformative approach to digital-era disputes, fundamentally reconceptualizing dispute resolution through distributed participant networks rather than merely digitizing traditional alternative dispute resolution. Anchored in Katsh and Rifkin’s dispute resolution triangle (trust, convenience, expertise) and Perritt’s co-regulatory governance model, this paper analyzes CODR’s evolution from early systems such as iCourthouse to contemporary implementations. Case studies of eBay Community Court (contractual self-regulation prioritizing convenience) and Xianyu Small Court (state-aligned hybrid governance optimizing expertise through algorithmic juror specialization) demonstrate how platforms operationalize these theoretical frameworks. The legal analysis examines jurisdictional fragmentation and enforcement challenges, revealing how regulatory …

Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost

Pepperdine Law Review

Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …

Jealously Guarded: The Right To Trial By Jury In Federal Court Under California’S Unruh Civil Rights Act, Denis Bogatin

Pepperdine Law Review

Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it …