Jurisdiction Commons^™

Impermissive Counterclaims: Why Nonresident Plaintiffs Can Contest Personal Jurisdiction In Unrelated Countersuits, Jon D. Bressler

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement Access To Data Across Borders: The Evolving Security And Rights Issues, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Judicial Externships, Mariana Hogan, Michael Roffer

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Agora: Reflections On Rjr Nabisco V. European Community: The Scope And Limitations Of The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, Hannah Buxbaum

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Kiobel And Extraterritoriality: Here, (Not) There, (Not Even) Everywhere, Edward T. Swaine

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analysis Of A Bias-Based Exception To The Doctrine Of Exhaustion In Wilson V. Bull, R. Mitchell Mcgrew

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nothing Personal (Or Subject Matter) About It: Jurisdictional Risk As An Impetus For Non-Tribal Opt-Outs From Tribal Economies, And The Need For Administrative Response, Joel Pruett

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief For Professor Walter Dellinger As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Walter E. Dellinger Iii

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Neutralizing The Stratagem Of “Snap Removal”: A Proposed Amendment To The Judicial Code, Arthur Hellman, Lonny Hoffman, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Joan Steinman, Georgene Vairo

Faculty Scholarship

The “Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act” is a narrowly tailored legislative proposal designed to resolve a widespread conflict in the federal district courts over the proper interpretation of the statutory “forum-defendant” rule.

The forum-defendant rule prohibits removal of a diversity case “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum state].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Some courts, following the “plain language” of the statute, hold that defendants can avoid the constraints of the rule by removing diversity cases to federal court when a citizen of the forum state has …

Jurisdiction, Foundations, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars And Southeastern Legal Foundation In Support Of Respondents, Kimberly S. Hermann, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Backlash Against International Courts In West, East And Southern Africa: Causes And Consequences, Karen J. Alter, James T. Gathii, Laurence R. Helfer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper discusses three credible attempts by African governments to restrict the jurisdiction of three similarly-situated sub-regional courts in response to politically controversial rulings. In West Africa, when the ECOWAS Court upheld allegations of torture by opposition journalists in the Gambia, that country’s political leaders sought to restrict the Court’s power to review human rights complaints. The other member states ultimately defeated the Gambia’s proposal. In East Africa, Kenya failed in its efforts to eliminate the EACJ and to remove some of its judges after a decision challenging an election to a sub-regional legislature. However, the member states agreed to …

The Preliminary Injunction Standard In Diversity: A Typical Unguided Erie Choice, David E. Shipley

Georgia Law Review

The standard for granting preliminary injunctions in some states is not the same as the preliminary injunction standard that is followed in the federal district courts in the federal circuit where the state is located. For example, the interlocutory injunction standard in Georgia's superior courts is not as demanding as the preliminary injunction standard in Georgia's federal courts. Although state and federal courts in Georgia consider four similar factors in deciding whether to grant or deny provisional injunctive relief, a balancing or sliding scale approach can be used in Georgia's courts; the moving party need not prove all four of …

How Presidents Interpret The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Religion, Liberty, And The Jurisdictional Limits Of Law [Review], Edited By Iain T. Benson And Barry W. Bussey, Nicholas P. Miller

Faculty Publications

"In recent years law and religion scholarship in Canada has grown significantly. This distinctive collection of 18 papers addresses, from a variety of angles, the jurisdiction of law itself and limits of law – an important but often overlooked aspect of settling the boundaries of church and state, religion and law."

The Value Of Uncertainty, Cathy Hwang, Benjamin P. Edwards

Northwestern University Law Review

In recent years, federal courts have heard, without clear subject matter jurisdiction, contract disputes involving billions of dollars worth of securitized financial instruments (SFIs). These SFI disputes are litigated in federal court under the federal interpleader statute, which specifies that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over these cases only when parties deposit the disputed amount with the court. SFI litigants have ignored this requirement, so courts have, at best, uncertain jurisdiction over these cases. Why have no parties raised the jurisdictional defect, even though some would stand to gain from raising it? This Essay advances game theoretical explanations …

The Lost History Of The Political Question Doctrine, Tara Leigh Grove

Faculty Publications

This Article challenges the conventional narrative about the political question doctrine. Scholars commonly assert that the doctrine, which instructs that certain constitutional questions are “committed” to Congress or to the executive branch, has been part of our constitutional system since the early nineteenth century. Furthermore, scholars argue that the doctrine is at odds with the current Supreme Court’s view of itself as the “supreme expositor” of all constitutional questions. This Article calls into question both claims. The Article demonstrates, first, that the current political question doctrine does not have the historical pedigree that scholars attribute to it. In the nineteenth …

When Is An Agency A Court? A Modified Functional Approach To State Agency Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Nicholas Jackson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that courts should interpret 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which permits removal from state court to federal court, to allow removal from state administrative agencies when the agency performs “court-like functions.” Circuits that apply a literal interpretation of the statute and forbid removal from state agencies should adopt this “functional” approach. The functional approach, which this Note calls the McCullion-Floeter test, should be modified to comport with legislative intent and public policy considerations: first, state agency adjudications should not be removable when the adjudication requires technical expertise, which federal courts cannot obtain because they adjudicate cases in a …

Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.

Personal Jurisdiction Based On The Local Effects Of Intentional Misconduct, Allan Erbsen

William & Mary Law Review

Intentional misconduct frequently has extraterritorial consequences. Terrorist attacks, toxic pollution, civil rights violations, and other intentional torts can cause harm within a state despite originating outside the state. Those harms raise a vexing constitutional question: when do the local effects of intentional wrongdoing authorize personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose conduct occurred outside the forum? The answer has several significant implications. Granting or denying jurisdiction can support or undermine regulatory interests by allocating power between states, imposes burdens on the parties that can impede access to justice, and alters risk assessments that shape both socially desirable and socially destructive behavior.