Jurisprudence Commons^™

Innocence And Habeas Corpus: A Call For Equitable Reforms, Paige Skousen Nelson

BYU Law Review

Congress intended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to codify the Burger and Rehnquist Courts’ habeas corpus jurisprudence, which aimed to establish finality and innocence as gatekeepers to the “Great Writ.” But in practice, AEDPA hinders innocence claims, particularly claims of legal innocence.

This Note agrees that innocence should be one of the most important considerations in granting writs but argues that it is not as valued as Congress intended. This Note proposes two congressional reforms to reinstate innocence to its paramount role without compromising finality: first, amending the federal habeas petition rule to allow petitioners …

Language And The Law: The Nature Of Law And Statutory Interpretation, Caleb W. Noble

Senior Honors Theses

The purpose of this thesis is twofold. First, it will demonstrate that law is both letter and spirit and that the letter and spirit should be balanced in interpretation. This thesis also seeks to define the spirit and letter of the law and their various components. The spirit is the metaphysical essence that embodies law and is made of intent, purpose, principle, and natural law. The letter is the substance of law and is made of promulgated commands, text, and language. Therefore, as law is both letter and spirit, these two must be balanced in interpretation. The nature of interpretation …

The Return Of Private Law, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

Recent events offer a grim picture of the future of public law. In particular, President Trump’s assault on the administrative state seems destined to hamper the ability of agencies to protect the public in familiar areas such as drug safety, auto safety, environmental protection, and consumer protection.

Challenging Race-Based Health Care Discrimination: A New Private Right Of Action, Aaron Pinkett

Northwestern University Law Review

The Hippocratic Oath calls on doctors to “do no harm.” Yet we know from extensive public health research that clinicians repeatedly cause harm to Black patients by dismissing their medical concerns, misdiagnosing them, and undertreating their pain. These practices of differential treatment for Black patients have led to steadily increasing racial disparities in health care outcomes throughout the United States. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits this type of disparate impact, but modern Supreme Court jurisprudence forecloses opportunities for affected parties to seek legal relief—despite the clearly established legislative intent of Title VI. However, another legal …

The Renaissance Of Private Law, Yotam Kaplan, Adi Libson, Gideon Parchomovsky

Northwestern University Law Review

Crisis is the new normal. Between global warming, the opioid pandemic, bursts of gun violence, and political instability fueled by fake news, it is hard to remember a time when we were not facing a major catastrophe. Still more troubling, there is a growing sense that our political and regulatory institutions are faltering in their ability to offer effective responses to the incoming crises. The rapid pace at which new problems emerge—together with growing political polarization—stymies regulatory and legislative action, resulting in an inability to address contemporary challenges.

Against this gloomy background, we posit an unlikely hero: private law. Recent …

Hindsight Is 20/20: Epilepsy Is Not One-Size-Fits-All, Raika Kim

Northwestern University Law Review

For many, epilepsy is one of the first conditions that come to mind when thinking of a disability, and for good reason: over 50 million people in the world live with epilepsy. Yet misunderstandings about epilepsy have perpetuated social stigma surrounding the disability for centuries. Ableist beliefs led to the passage of laws in the 1900s condoning—and in some cases, requiring—sterilization of individuals with epilepsy and restriction of their right to marry. Even today, state driving laws, justified as promoting public safety, categorically prevent anyone diagnosed with epilepsy from driving unless they are seizure free for an arbitrary, nonuniform period …

Let's Get Personal: Due Process And Personal Jurisdiction As A New Path Forward For Extraterritoriality, Samy Abdelsalam

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has put fundamental principles of federalism and state sovereignty under attack. Legislation and lawsuits in states nationwide aim to limit the rights of American citizens to travel freely between states in search of medical care. Further, these measures have extraterritorial reach, legally entangling the rights of private citizens in other states who provide medical care even while fully within their own state borders. Scholars have analyzed this development through various doctrinal lenses, including the Dormant Commerce Clause. But these frameworks fail to adequately protect those who are unfortunate enough …

Climate Exceptionalism In Court, Zachary D. Clopton, David A. Dana

Northwestern University Law Review

Across a range of cases, fossil fuel companies, government actors, and some judges have conceded that climate change is an exceptional phenomenon, only to argue that its exceptional nature is a reason to keep climate change out of court. These parties and judges thus seek to avoid the adjudication of climate cases on the merits, even when the neutral application of existing law would provide for jurisdiction in these cases. We term this phenomenon “climate jurisdiction exceptionalism.”

This Article provides a comprehensive account of climate jurisdiction exceptionalism, focusing on two main threads: Article III standing and state court jurisdiction. First, …

Preclusive Jurisdictional Dismissals, Kevin Song

Northwestern University Law Review

Every litigant deserves their day in court. At the same time, litigants cannot endlessly go to court on the same matter. A complex body of preclusion law balances these fundamental tenets by examining when adjudication of a matter precludes subsequent relitigation. This body of law has evolved over time to preserve the day-in-court ideal in a way that is sensitive to the threats that relitigation present to judicial efficiency, fair adjudication, and repose. Modern preclusion law has settled on a pragmatic approach: where a court has issued a final judgment on the merits but erroneously assumed jurisdiction, relitigation may still …

Modalities, Anti-Modalities, And The Social Psychology Of Persuasive Constitutional Argument, Asma T. Uddin

Catholic University Law Review

Constitutional argumentation traditionally relies on modalities such as text, history, doctrine, and structure. However, the exclusion of certain “anti-modalities”—such as policy arguments, fundamentalist views, and emotional appeals—can create a “resonance gap” between legal reasoning and public understanding. This paper explores how social science insights, particularly from cultural cognition theory (CCT) and moral foundations theory (MFT), can help bridge this gap by guiding the strategic incorporation of pathos and moral intuitions into constitutional arguments. Techniques such as self-affirmation, expressive overdetermination, and aporetic reasoning can make opinions more persuasive and inclusive without compromising legal integrity. The paper examines how these strategies can …

The Final Frontier Of Federal Power: Understanding, Defining, And Enforcing “Necessary And Proper” To Enhance The General Welfare And Limit Federal Power, Thomas Ralph

Catholic University Law Review

This comment explores the long and inconsistent history of the Necessary and Proper Clause and its unique role as both a grant of power to Congress and a limit on the outer reach of the federal government. The federal government is in theory one of limited powers; however, this promise of the Constitution cannot be truly recognized without developing a robust framework for applying the Necessary and Proper Clause as a reliable source of federal power. After establishing the need for a framework, this comment provides five judicial decision rules that can be applied by trial and appellate courts to …

A Matter Of Public Concern: Eliminating The Public Concern Test To Safeguard New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Alyssa T. Calcerano

Catholic University Law Review

In recent years, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have expressed a strong interest in reconsidering, and perhaps overruling, the landmark defamation decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court’s defamation jurisprudence has undergone many changes since the landmark case was decided, namely, the Court has since adopted a test known as the “public concern” test. Though adopted by only a plurality of the Court, the “public concern” test has been integrated into the defamation decisions of lower federal courts and state courts. This comment encourages the Court to abandon any push toward the wholesale abandonment of Sullivan and, instead, …

The Validity Of The Restrictions On The Modern Advisory Opinion, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

In 1831 the Maine House of Representatives, relying on its constitutional authority to request advisory opinions, sought the counsel of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding voting requirements for the election of state officers. Because the House was about to adjourn, it requested that the Justices forward their answers to the Governor for publication. The Justices, without mentioning any constitutional limitation on their power to answer questions propounded by the Governor or the Legislature, complied with this request. One hundred and forty years later, the Senate requested the Justices' advice regarding the reapportionment of the House of Representatives. …

The Precedential Weight Of Summary Dispositions Of Appeals, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The extent to which the Supreme Court's summary dispositions of appeals are entitled to precedential weight presents a serious problem for lower courts confronted with cases involving issues similar to those previously disposed of in a summarily decided appeal. A recent source of confusion in this area was the Supreme Court's 1975 opinion in Hicks v. Miranda. In Hicks, the lower court held a California statute unconstitutional despite the fact that one year earlier the Supreme Court had summarily dismissed an appeal from a decision upholding the constitutionality of the same statute., The Supreme Court reversed, pointing out that its …

Maine's Reception Of The Common Law, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

From the fledgling days of statehood, and throughout the nineteenth century, attorneys and judges frequently invoked the constitutional reception clause in defining Maine law. The clause served the valuable purpose of providing the new state with a transitional system of law. In the words of Prentiss Mellen, first Chief Justice of Maine's Supreme Judicial Court, reception "was evidently designed to prevent confusion consequent upon a suspension of law, and the injury which would thereby result to the community and individuals." After the nineteenth century, as Maine developed an indigenous body of decisional and statutory law, the reception provision increasingly fell …

Tort Law Developments, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Any discussion of recent tort law developments in Maine should begin with the abrogation of sovereign immunity, for in the timing of that far-reaching act the Law Court revealed the essence of its approach to this entire area, at once expanding liability while ensuring its careful limitation. Other progressive changes, such as the judicial creation of a new tort remedy in the cause of action for invasion of privacy, have also been hedged with restrictions. Similarly, in charting the development of legislatively created or enlarged grounds of liability in such realms as products liability or owners' and occupiers' duties to …

Workmen's Compensation: Compensable Injuries; Awards; Relation Of Court And Commission, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

During Justice Dufresne's term as Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the court considered over sixty-five cases presenting issues that involved the state Workmen's Compensation Act. These decisions attempted to define both the concept of a compensable injury and the nature of workmen's compensation awards. Examination of the court's treatment of these two major components of the workmen's compensation system reveals the Law Court's attitude toward the system itself, the statutory scheme utilized by the Maine Legislature, and the administrative procedure employed in handling workmen's compensation claims. Consideration of the relationship between the court and the Industrial Accident …

Stare Decisis, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

Stare decisis, a doctrine fundamental to common law decisionmaking, requires a court to resolve disputes within the framework provided by the rationales and results of prior cases addressed to similar legal and factual relations. It seeks to reconcile the law's two great warring imperatives, that which requires a rational scheme of consistent authority serving the broad social goals of predictability, uniformity, and finality, with that which demands individual results informed by principle and applied with flexibility and discretion—in a word, justice. On the one hand, by focusing on how legal theory has interacted with fact on correlative earlier occasions the …

Statutory Construction, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The various rules a court may invoke as the time-worn tests of a statute's meaning reveal little of its institutional approach to statutory construction unless considered in the light of particular cases to which they are applied. Mindful that courts generally have failed to develop consistent approaches to statutory construction, the following survey attempts to rough out the contours of Maine doctrine. The reader should note that any critical evaluations derive from stated preferences for particular approaches to problems of statutory construction, and should recall that opinion on these topics varies widely.

Labor Law: Teacher Disputes, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The vast majority of labor law issues presented to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court during the previous seven years were rooted in the confusion surrounding the role of collective bargaining in public school teacher disputes. Indicative of the unsettled nature of this area is the tension between the teacher termination statutes and the Municipal Public Employee Labor Relations Law (hereinafter referred to as MPELRL). Despite the later enactment of MPELRL and its more specific provisions, the court has consistently refused to give it wide application in teacher disputes, choosing instead to rely on the more amorphous statutory provisions defining the …