Jurisdiction Commons^™

No Justice Without Transparency: The Case For A Broad Presumption Of Public Access To Court Documents, Taylor Quimby

FIU Law Review

This Comment argues that a broad presumption of public access to court  documents is essential to preserving the legitimacy and constitutional values  of the American legal system. Although the principle of public access is  rooted in common law and constitutional tradition, individual states differ in  how they approach transparency in the context of court documents. These  jurisdictional inconsistencies continue to gain significance, as the digital age  has completely transformed the way people consume information. The  increasing digitization of court records has heightened the need for consistent  and constitutionally grounded standards that preserve transparency while  adequately protecting legitimate privacy interests. Florida’s …

A Direct Path Should Be Easy To Follow: Reframing The “Direct Effect” Test For Jurisdictional Immunity Under The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Greggory Cashmark

Vanderbilt Law Review

As sovereign nations become more involved in international commercial dealings, it becomes more important to establish a reliable and stable framework for resolving disputes with foreign sovereigns. The FSIA is the result of a long historical trend towards establishing that framework. While the FSIA is a step in the right direction, there are a number of interpretive questions regarding where it places the boundaries of a court's jurisdiction over foreign sovereign activity. While these questions remain open and while courts continue to find reasons to keep them open, they undermine the principal purpose of the FSIA: predictability. There is no …

When The Internet Attacks, Craig Cowie

Cardozo Law Review

Courts have struggled with applying personal jurisdiction in cases involving intentional torts where the defendants act outside the forum, and the problem is particularly apparent and acute when the defendants use the internet to commit the tort. For example, is there jurisdiction when a defendant doxxes someone and calls for violence? What if they leave a bad Yelp review? Or tweet a defamatory statement? Courts have used many tests for determining whether personal jurisdiction is appropriate in these situations, but there has been relatively little recent scholarship on whether these tests are appropriate for analyzing personal jurisdiction in these contexts. …

Much Ado About Misjoinder: An Alternative To Fraudulent Misjoinder To Preserve Defendants’ Right To Removal In Pharmaceutical And Medical Device Products Liability Cases, Alexander Flaum

Cardozo Law Review

Unresolved questions surrounding the contours of the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine have understandably led to reluctance by courts to adopt it, despite its utility in protecting defendants’ access to federal court. This is particularly troubling in the context of pharmaceutical and medical device products liability cases. It is common in these actions for plaintiffs, whose only connection is having consumed a particular pharmaceutical product at different points in time and for different durations, to strategically join in one action to defeat complete diversity and prevent removal to federal court. However, federal courts are not powerless to prevent such procedural gamesmanship. By …

The Inconvenience Doctrine, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

BYU Law Review

In a nation of stark inequalities, the Roberts Court is often portrayed as siding with the wealthy and powerful. Many scholars argue that the Court has abandoned legal principles altogether and instead simply chooses winners and losers based on the conservative majority’s political agenda. Meanwhile, scholarly examinations of the legal reasoning underlying the Court’s most impactful decisions are largely confined to specific subject areas. Such compartmentalized analyses, though, overlook broader patterns in the Court’s rulings that transcend substantive legal boundaries.

This Article bridges the gap in these parallel conversations by connecting the Roberts Court’s reasoning across many legal fields with …

Standing In The Dark, Sharon Brett

BYU Law Review

Demonstrating standing for injunctive relief in § 1983 police misconduct cases is undisputedly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, plaintiffs seeking injunctions must present more than evidence of past misconduct; they must show a significant ongoing risk that they will experience the same misconduct again. Scholarly attention to Lyons has focused primarily on doctrinal errors in the Court’s legal analysis, and for good reason. But the case raises another important yet overlooked question: Can civil rights plaintiffs realistically demonstrate risk of future harm given (a) the limited data kept by law enforcement about their …

Rules Of Decision, Judicial Power, And The Valid Rule Requirement, John Harrison

Catholic University Law Review

Some current Supreme Court debates that concern seemingly specialized issues raise fundamental questions about the role of the Constitution in the legal system and the role of the courts when they decide constitutional issues. In recent years, Justice Thomas has suggested that the doctrines of First Amendment overbreadth, so-called third-party standing in cases involving constitutional liberty, and statutory inseverability call on federal courts to exceed their role under Article III. Justice Thomas maintains that when courts apply those doctrines, the courts decide cases not before them. Building on the work of Professor Henry Monaghan, this article argues that those concerns …

Facial Challenges, Remedies, And The Judicial Power, Natalie R. Schmidt

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court has long maligned facial, as opposed to as-applied, challenges to the constitutionality of statutes, warning that they are disfavored and difficult to win. But recently, in his separate opinion in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, Justice Thomas has launched a stronger attack: facial challenges are improper exercises of the judicial power. Facial challenges, he asserted, require courts to go beyond the case or controversy before them, improperly distort standing doctrine, and thus violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

This Symposium Piece addresses Justice Thomas’s charge head on, arguing that facial challenges do not implicate the judicial …

Rethinking Judicial Power & Remedial Restraint, Caprice L. Roberts

Catholic University Law Review

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in …

Disregarding Severability, Kevin C. Walsh

Catholic University Law Review

The infirmities of severability doctrine have elicited increased attention at the Supreme Court. In his application of severability doctrine for a five-Justice majority in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Chief Justice Roberts began to reformulate the doctrine in a way that can free the Court from the misleading mental imagery conjured by the conception of courts as “severing” provisions from a statute. Roberts's reformulation more properly depicts the relevant judicial activity to be judicial disregard of statutory rules to avoid unconstitutional applications of law rather than judicial severance of textual provisions to fix a problem that inheres in the …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Auer Deference: He Who Writes The Law Must Not Adjudge Its Violation, William G. Kennedy

MC Law Review

This Comment explores Auer deference and its application to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission, and its commentary. Auer deference, in its simplest form, requires courts to give controlling weight to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Following the Court’s decision in Kisor—expressly limiting Auer’s application, the circuit courts have disagreed on the applicability of Auer to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary regarding career offender designation. This disagreement begs for an appearance before the Court of Last Resort, but until that day, the courts must rigidly apply Kisor to …

Frankenstein Sinatra: The Argument For A Federal Postmortem Right Of Publicity In The Ai-Era, Ian Samide

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Artificial Intelligence has fundamentally revolutionized the way media is generated and presents new and unique threats to the right of publicity. By enabling users to create high-quality, realistic deep fakes of individuals’ voices, images, or likenesses, Artificial Intelligence has created novel risks to the right of publicity. Additionally, right of publicity is currently governed by state law. This system is proving to be flawed in the internet age, as content is rarely confined to a single jurisdiction, resulting in unpredictability and juridical disputes. This note argues that a federal right of publicity is necessary to regulate Artificial Intelligence effectively and …

What's Appealing In Mississippi?, Virginia C. Carlton

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifth Circuit And Mississippi Law: Asked And Answered (Or Not), Caroline B. Smith, Emily K. Lindsay, Jim Rosenblatt

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nonparty Protective Relief In The Early Republic: Judicial Power To Annul Letters Patent, James E. Pfander, Mary E. Zakowski

Northwestern University Law Review

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or nonparty protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of nonparties. As a result, the story of nonparty protective relief has not yet been fully told.

This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all. Some familiar examples …

Investigating The Relationship Between Noun Classes And Plant Folk Taxonomy In Chasu Language Of Kilimanjaro Region In Tanzania, Peter Rabson Mziray

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

The current study investigates the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu (G 22). The study focuses on two objectives: the first objective is to describe the plant folk taxonomy in Chasu and the second objective is to determine the relationship between noun classes and plant folk taxonomy in Chasu. Data were collected from rural villages in Same and Mwanga districts by using free listing, field interviews (jungle-walk-and-identify), and written texts containing Chasu plant names. The findings reveal that Chasu folk taxonomy reflects different ethnobotanical categories; including a unique beginner which is mmea/mimea ‘plant(s)’, and three life …

Habeas Corpus And Void Judgments, David Kinnaird

Notre Dame Law Review

In a string of recent opinions, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas have posited that postconviction relief upon a writ of habeas corpus was historically unavailable except where the judgment of conviction was issued by a court lacking jurisdiction. In light of this history, Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have argued for a reconsideration of the modern scope of the writ, which generally allows for relitigation of alleged constitutional error in the course of criminal trial.

This Article argues that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have the history half right. They are correct to assert that a valid judgment of conviction was a …

Chimeric Contacts And Consent: The Ill-Reasoned Expansion Of Corporate Jurisdictional Exposure, James Paul George

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have imposed aspects of general jurisdiction in a way that exposes corporations and possibly other legal actors to litigation in spuriously connected forums. One case-Ford Motor Company v. Montana-reached a fair result but with strained reasoning that will support unfair results. The second case-Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Company-was wrong on the facts and the law, imposing general jurisdiction based on a vaguely worded corporate registration statute validated by a more than century-old precedent based on Pennoyer v. Neff's limited territorial model. Both decisions were the result of conceptual corners the Supreme Court has created …

Critical Approaches To Jurisdiction: The Struggle For Control Of Indigenous Lands And Resources, Dayna Scott

Articles & Book Chapters

This chapter questions the starting assumptions in thinking through questions of “jurisdiction” in public law, specifically in relation to assertions of inherent Indigenous territorial governing authority. It reviews the common conceptual images of jurisdiction we employ in law schools and offers resources from critical interdisciplinary theory for new conceptions. In highlighting examples of the present exercise of Indigenous territorial jurisdiction, such as the Kunst'aa guu— Kunst'aayah Reconciliation Protocol and the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust Assessment of the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project, the chapter urges public law scholars to adopt an orientation of prefiguration in order to bring into being conceptualizations …