Jurisdiction Commons^™

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

The Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case: From Tradition To Modernity And Halfway Back (Part Iii Of South Dakota Law Review Trilogy), Frank Pommersheim

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Alien Tort Claims And The Status Of Customary International Law, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Much of the recent debate about the status of customary international law in the U.S. legal system has revolved around the alien tort provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, currently section 1350 of Title 28. In Filártiga v. Peńa-Irala, the decision that launched modern human rights litigation in the United States, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit relied on the view that customary international law has the status of federal common law in upholding section 1350’s grant of federal jurisdiction over a suit between aliens. The court’s position that customary international law was federal law was …

Advisory Adjudication, Girardeau A. Spann

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene is revealing. The Court first issues an opinion authorizing appeals by prevailing parties in qualified immunity cases, even though doing so entails the issuance of an advisory opinion that is not necessary to resolution of the dispute between the parties. And the Court then declines to reach the merits of the underlying constitutional claim in the case, because doing so would entail the issuance of an advisory opinion that was not necessary to the resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court's decision, therefore, has the paradoxical effect of both honoring …

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …

Evading Legislative Jurisdiction, Austen L. Parrish

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In the last few years, and mostly unnoticed, courts have adopted a radically different approach to issues of legislative jurisdiction. Instead of grappling with the difficult question of whether Congress intended a law to reach beyond U.S. borders, courts have side-stepped it entirely. Courts have done so by redefining the definition of extraterritoriality. Significant and contentious decisions in the Ninth and D.C. Circuits paved the way by holding that not all regulation of overseas foreign conduct is extraterritorial. And then suddenly, last term, the U.S. Supreme Court breathed life into the practice. In its landmark Morrison v. National Australia Bank …

The Standing Doctrine's Dirty Little Secret, Evan Tsen Lee, Josephine Mason Ellis

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Magic Words And The Erie Doctrine, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cars In Chapter 13: Does Negative Equity Destroy The Jurisdiction Of The Hanging Paragraph, David G. Carlson

Articles

Roughly speaking, the “hanging paragraph” to Bankruptcy Code 1325(a), enacted in 2005, requires that a debtor pay the full debt on any automobile acquired within 910 days before bankruptcy – a boon for car financiers. Prior to 2005 the debtor had to pay only the appraised value of the car – usually a lesser amount. But the privilege bestowed on car financiers by the hanging paragraph depends on the financier providing “purchase money” credit. About one-third of the time, however, the financier advances funds to repay a prior car loan as part of the “trade-in” of an old vehicle for …

Can Equitable Estoppel Be Used As An Effective Way For A Legal Parent To Obtain Child Support For The Children Of A Separated Same-Sex Couple?, Josh Smolow

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Pereira's Attack On Legalizing Euthanasia Or Assisted Suicide: Smoke And Mirrors, Jocelyn Downie, Kenneth Chambaere, Jan L. Bernheim

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In a paper published in Current Oncology, University of Ottawa palliative care physician Jose Pereira states that the, “laws and safeguards [in countries in which euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized] are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions, and that transgressions are not prosecuted.” He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an “illusion.”

In the present paper, we expose problems with the evidence base provided and relied upon by Pereira. It should be noted that we provide only examples of each of the categories of mistakes made …

An Economic Perspective On Preemption, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay has two goals. The first is to present an economic theory of preemption as a choice among regulatory regimes. The optimal regime choice model is used to generate specific implications for the court decisions on preemption of products liability claims. The second objective is to extrapolate from the regime choice model to consider its implications for broader controversies about preemption.

No History, No Certainty, No Legitimacy . . . No Problem: Originalism And The Limits Of Legal Theory, Gary S. Lawson

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Martin H. Redish is on the warpath. Like General Sherman marching toward Atlanta (or Justin Tuck marching toward Tom Brady), Professor Redish, together with Matthew Arnould,1 lays waste to every constitutional theory that he encounters. Originalism, with its “belief that constitutional interpretation should be characterized exclusively by an effort to determine the Constitution’s meaning by means of some form of historical inquiry,”2 generates “an often contrived and opaque veil of historical inquiry”3 that provides “an ideal smokescreen behind which judges may pursue their personal[,] moral, political[,] or economic goals with relative impunity.”4 Nontextual theories, for their part, “permit[] selective …

Region Codes And The Territorial Mess, Peter K. Yu

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Choice Of Law As General Common Law: A Reply To Professor Brilmayer, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Article Iii And Removal Jurisdiction: The Demise Of The Complete Diversity Rule And A Proposed Return To Minimal Diversity, Rodney K. Miller

Oklahoma Law Review

The complete diversity rule is broken. Although easily applied in theory (federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an action on diversity grounds only when no party is of the same citizenship as any adverse party), over time the number of judicially and legislatively created exceptions to the rule, as well as their varying and inconsistent application by the federal courts, has created an environment in which similarly situated parties are treated differently based solely on the forum in which the litigation is brought. In the removal context, depending upon the forum in which an action is filed, a …

Negotiating Jurisdiction: Retroceding State Authority Over Indian Country Granted By Public Law 280, Robert T. Anderson

Articles

This Article canvasses the jurisdictional rules applicable in American Indian tribal territories-"Indian country." The focus is on a federal law passed in the 1950s, which granted some states a measure of jurisdiction over Indian country without tribal consent. The law is an aberration. Since the adoption of the Constitution, federal law preempted state authority over Indians in their territory. The federal law permitting some state jurisdiction, Public Law 280, is a relic of a policy repudiated by every President and Congress since 1970. States have authority to surrender, or retrocede, the authority granted by Public Law 280, but Indian tribal …

Prescriptive Jurisdiction, Adjudicative Jurisdiction, And The Ministerial Exemption, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Note: "Standing" In The Way Of Equality? The Myth Of Proponent Standing And The Jurisdictional Error In Perry V. Brown, Andrew Kim

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erie As A Choice Of Enforcement Defaults, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

The Erie doctrine governs, among other things, when a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction may use a federal procedure that differs from the procedure a state court would use. Displacing the state procedure with the federal procedure (or not) may impact the substantive objectives of either state or federal law, but the current Erie doctrine provides little guidance. This Article argues that the Erie doctrine is best understood as governing a choice of enforcement defaults. As argued below, the primary function of civil liability is to protect a substantive entitlement to avoid the legal violation, either directly through specific …