Jurisdiction Commons^™

A Tale Of Two Jurisdictions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court has recently clarified one corner of personal jurisdiction—a court’s power to hale a defendant into court—and pointed the way toward a coherent theory of the rest of the doctrine. For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, focuses more on the connection between the lawsuit itself and the forum. Although the two theories should have developed in tandem, the doctrine has become a …

Isolating Litigants: A Response To Pamela Bookman, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

In a recent article, Litigation Isolationism, Pamela Bookman identifies a phenomenon that similarly changes hue depending on one’s perspective or disposition. Bookman argues that four doctrines (personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abstention comity, and the presumption against extraterritoriality) conspire to make U.S. courts significantly less hospitable to transnational litigation. In Bookman’s assessment, such isolationism is counterproductive because the doctrines often fail to vindicate their stated goals of respecting the separation of powers, international comity, and defendants’ interests. The article is crisp and elegant. It synthesizes disparate areas of law to elucidate a broader development in civil litigation. And it makes …

Global Systemic Risk And International Regulatory Coordination: Squaring Sovereignty And Financial Stability, Federico Lupo-Pasini, Ross P. Buckley

American University International Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost: A Brief Rejoinder To Professor Klerman, Dustin E. Buehler

Washington Law Review Online

My recent article https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss3/2/">Solving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost examines issues implicated by nonwaivable federal court subject-matter jurisdiction. I argue that courts and commentators are prone to monistic theories of jurisdictional value, failing to consider the full range of interests implicated by jurisdictional rules. I then catalogue the various interests arising from jurisdictional rules. Lastly, I advance several solutions, including early jurisdictional certification orders, a cut-off point for jurisdictional challenges, interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional rulings, and sanctions to deter private-party abuse. Daniel Klerman’s response to my article is articulate, well-reasoned, and persuasive. Among other contentions, he suggests that mandatory jurisdictional …

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Three C'S Of Jurisdiction Over Human Rights Claims In U.S. Courts, Chimène I. Keitner

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The legal aftermath of the Holocaust continues to unfold in U.S. courts. Most recently, the Seventh Circuit dismissed claims against the Hungarian national railway and Hungarian national bank for World War II-era crimes against Hungarian Jews on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not exhausted available local remedies in Hungary or provided a “legally compelling” reason for not doing so. More broadly, heated debates about the role of U.S. courts in enforcing international human rights law have not abated since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which restricted but did not eliminate federal …

The Role Of Non-Governmental Organizations In Advancing International Criminal Justice, Charles C. Jalloh

Articles

This article examines the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in advancing international criminal justice. I argue that NGOs have had considerable impact by contributing, among other things, to the global struggle against impunity through advocacy for the creation of more robust institutional mechanisms to prosecute those who perpetrate such crimes. This ranges from supporting the processes that led to the creation of several ad hoc international tribunals for Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, all the way through to their support for the establishment of an independent permanent international penal court based in The Hague. The crux of my claim is …

We Should Use 'Cause Of Action' More Carefully: A Review Of John F. Preis, How The Federal Cause Of Action Relates To Rights, Remedies, And Jurisdiction, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Thinking Globally, Policing Locally: A Model For Decentralized Law Enforcement In Cote D'Ivoire, 15 J. Int'l Bus. & L. 15 (2015), Hugh Mundy

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.

Fletcherian Standing, Merits, And Spokeo V. Robins, Howard Wasserman

Faculty Publications

This essay offers an exercise in wishful jurisdictional and procedural thinking. As part of a Supreme Court Roundtable on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, it argues for William Fletcher's conception of standing as an inquiry into the substantive merits of a claim and of whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. This approach is especially necessary in statutory cases; along with its constitutional power to create new rights, duties, and remedies, Congress should have a free hand in deciding who and how those rights and duties should be enforced. Spokeo, which involves a claim for damages for publication of …

Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle— Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.

In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in …

Choosing A Court To Review The Executive, Joseph Mead, Nicholas Fromherz

All Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban Affairs Publications

For more than one hundred years, Congress has experimented with review of agency action by single-judge district courts, multiple-judge district courts, and direct review by circuit courts. This tinkering has not given way to a stable design. Rather than settling on a uniform scheme—or at least a scheme with a discernible organizing principle—Congress has left litigants with a jurisdictional maze that varies unpredictably across and within statutes and agencies.In this Article, we offer a fresh look at the theoretical and empirical factors that ought to inform the allocation of the judicial power between district and circuit courts in suits challenging …

The Supreme Court's New Approach To Personal Jurisdiction, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In the Supreme Court’s recent general jurisdiction cases, it narrowed general jurisdiction in accord with a “reasonableness” approach to jurisdiction that is consistent with International Shoe’s so-called “forward-looking” face. In the Court’s most recent specific jurisdiction case, Walden v. Fiore, the Court took steps toward assessing specific jurisdiction under a reasonableness analysis, but it ultimately reunited the antagonistic “reasonableness” and territorial power theories to impose artificial limits on specific jurisdiction. The newly narrowed general jurisdiction will not often be available as a “safety valve” to provide jurisdiction in some cases in which jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances. This …

In Defense Of Empirical Legal Studies, Christina L. Boyd

Scholarship@WashULaw

The empirical legal studies movement, or ELS, is positioned to provide an important scholarly impact. As noted ELS scholar Theodore Eisenberg once put it, “[a]cross a broad range of legal issues, empirical studies can inform policymakers and the public. Legally trained social scientists have unique opportunities to enhance description and understanding of the legal system.” By all accounts, this influence is well underway. ELS scholarship has been present in law schools since at least the 1920s and is on the rise in recent years, with important empirical insights gained into legal subjects such as error rates in capital punishment convictions, …

Internet Protocol Television And The Challenge Of "Mission Critical" Bits, Rob Frieden

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Goveille V. Liberty Mutual: An Opportunity To Correct The Problems Of Erisa Preemption, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

No abstract provided.

What's Love Got To Do With It? The Value Of Celebrity Status In Divorce Proceedings, Shanice Naidu

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pennoyer Strikes Back: Personal Jurisdiction In A Global Age, William V. Dorsaneo Iii

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The primary purpose of this Article is to evaluate the four most recent Supreme Court decisions on personal jurisdiction and situate those decisions within the history of Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. Starting with the seminal case of Pennoyer v. Neff, personal jurisdiction jurisprudence has been remarkably kaleidoscopic,with the Supreme Court intervening at various intervals to redefine the law in broad strokes, while zigzagging from one doctrinal position to another and thereby leaving lower courts to hash out the application of an evolving personal jurisdiction doctrine to varying fact patterns. I will divide this jurisprudential history into two main groups …