Torts. Federal Tort Claims Act. District Courts Split on Permissibility of Joining Individual Defendants in Suit against the United States

1948 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 321
2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M.P. de Figueiredo ◽  
Gerald S. Gryski ◽  
Emerson H. Tiller ◽  
Gary Zuk

1955 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Walter Gellhorn ◽  
Louis Lauer

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 1155-1180
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S Nowacki ◽  
Danielle Creech ◽  
Megan Parks

Abstract Many states in the United States have recently implemented voter suppression policies, which make voting more difficult, particularly for members of marginalized populations (e.g. non-white and female voters). In this article, we examine how these policies and other measures of political climate influence criminal sentencing in US district courts. Using 2015 data from the US Sentencing Commission, alongside other district-level measures, we find both direct and conditioning relationships between political climate and extra-legal variables. Specifically, we find that, while voter suppression policies do not directly affect sentence length, racial threat effects are enhanced in districts governed by such policies. Conversely, districts without such policies see larger mitigating effects at high levels of ethnic diversity and gender equality.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hutchens

On June 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. In this landmark case, the Paraguayan plaintiffs sought to hold Americo Norbeto Peña-Irala, a high-ranking Paraguayan police officer, liable for torture that led to the death of Joel Filártiga in Paraguay. They rested their main jurisdictional argument “upon the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides: ‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'” The Second Circuit held, “[D]eliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. Thus, whenever an alleged torturer is found and served with process by an alien within our borders, § 1350 provides federal jurisdiction.” It added that “Our holding today, giving effect to a jurisdictional provision enacted by our First Congress, is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.”


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karima Bennoune

AbstractThis article analyses Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front et al., an Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) case brought in the United States by the late Rhonda Copelon, a leading feminist international lawyer. Bennoune explores the experiences of the Jane Doe plaintiffs, exposing the limited legal avenues that were available to them at the time. She finds that Copelon's creative ATCA litigation strategy embodied a symbolic, feminist act in the paradoxical quest for justice, armed with the knowledge that it would likely become a losing battle. The article ultimately shows that the ACTA litigation, even if unsuccessful in the end, recognised that non-state actors can harm human rights, and provided a powerful avenue for expressing plaintiffs' grievances when no other court would hear them.


Author(s):  
Jacob Schuman

The United States Sentencing Guidelines place little emphasis on probability. Instead, the Guidelines recommend a sentence in each case based only on whether certain facts about the offender’s crime exceed a “threshold” level of likelihood. Guidelines sentences therefore fail to reflect the precise odds of each defendant’s wrongdoing, which makes them both inefficient and unfair. This model of decision making is particularly problematic in drug sentencing, where judges often impose lengthy sentences based on drug quantity calculations that carry a high risk of error. To address these problems, district courts should exercise their discretion, and policymakers should implement reforms that incorporate probability into punishment.


1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 759-760

Prior to the amendment, the non–commercial tort exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(5), barred tort claims against foreign states where the tort and the resulting injury did not occur in the United States. New §1605(a)(7) denies immunity to states in suits involving torture, extrajudicial killing, hostage taking, and aircraft sabotage, committed outside the U.S. by an official, employee or agent of the offending state while acting within the scope of his employment or agency. The respondent state must have been designated by the Executive as a state sponsor of terrorism. To fall within this new jurisdictional grant, the claim must meet several preconditions, each of which has dispositive jurisdictional significance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document