The Federal Courts, Localism, and the National Economy, 1865–1900

1979 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony A. Freyer
Keyword(s):  
National Economy ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Interstate Commerce ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Right

It is a truism of American constitutional history that the federal judiciary was expected to facilitate interstate commerce. The right of individuals to remove cases to a federal court from locally prejudiced state courts was recognized under a wide range of circumstances. But it seemed less and less natural, as more and more of the nation's business came to be transacted by the “trusts” on a national basis, for corporations to be accorded the same rights. Professor Freyer shows that a major campaign, which had some success in the 1880s, was mounted to deny corporations the right of escape to federal courts. In the end, however, the nation's lawmakers recognized that the problem of the growing concentration of capital would have to be solved by something more sophisticated than frontier justice.

The Origins of an Expanded Federal Court Jurisdiction: Railroad Development and the Ascendancy of the Federal Judiciary

1984 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 336-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip L. Merkel
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Rapid Expansion ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Union Pacific ◽  
Pacific Railroad ◽  
Transcontinental Railroad

The years following the Civil War witnessed a rapid expansion in the power of the federal judiciary. In this article, Professor Merkel reveals that the construction of the transcontinental railroad played an important role in this development. Beginning in 1868, the management of the federally chartered Union Pacific Railroad sought legislation that would authorize the company to remove lawsuits from hostile state courts to more sympathetic federal forums. Congress was accommodating, passing laws that expanded the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. Consequently, these courts resolved many questions of transportation law, often in ways that benefitted the railroads.

Pendent Jurisdiction in Australia—Section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Future

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.

Toward a Constructive Constitutional History

2021 ◽  
pp. 223-236
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Synthetic Approach ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The U.S

This chapter explores the lessons for the theory of constitutional adjudication that emerge from this book’s account of the meaning of cases and controversies in Article III. Proposing a constructive or synthetic approach to constitutional interpretation, the chapter urges the U.S. Supreme Court to substitute a litigable interest standard for the modern case-or-controversy rule. Such an approach would enable the Court to uphold the right of individuals to pursue uncontested claims as authorized by Congress and to continue to insist on adversary presentations in the disputes that parties present to federal court for resolution. The constructive approach advocated here differs from the position sometimes advanced by originalists in that it seeks to accommodate the lessons of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries in formulating a measure of the limits of judicial power.

scholarly journals Liberty, Equality and the Right to Marry under the Fourteenth Amendment

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Right

Abstract The legitimacy of recent judgments in the Supreme Court, lower federal courts and State courts which have extended the scope of the Due Process and/or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment has been a fiercely contested controversy in legal and political circles in the USA. The controversy has been especially sharp in relation to the question of same sex marriage, and specifically whether it is within State competence to refuse to allow same sex couples to marry under State law. This paper explores that legitimation controversy through a multi-contextual analysis of the Supreme Court’s starkly divided judgment in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), in which a bare majority of the Court concluded that a State ban on same sex marriage was incompatible with the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This paper critiques both the majority and dissenting opinions, and suggests that while one might applaud the substantive conclusion the Court has reached, the reasoning offered by the majority suffers from several obvious weaknesses both in narrow doctrinal terms and from the broader perspective of safeguarding the Court from well-founded criticism that it is overstepping the bounds of its legitimate constitutional role.

Nuclear Fallout: Investigating the Effect of Senate Procedural Reform on Judicial Nominations

The Forum ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Boyd ◽  
Michael S. Lynch ◽  
Anthony J. Madonna
Keyword(s):  
Formal Theory ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Nuclear Fallout ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Procedural Reform ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOn November 21, 2013, U.S. Senate Democrats utilized the long threatened “nuclear option,” thereby allowing a simple-majority of the chamber to end debate on lower federal court judicial nominations. Formal theory predicts that this change should permit the president to nominate more ideologically extreme nominees. By comparing President Obama’s nominees before and after the Senate’s change to the confirmation process, we are able to provide the first comprehensive examination of how the nuclear option is likely to impact the ideological makeup of the lower federal courts. We additionally examine the impact of the nuclear option on time to confirmation and nominee success. Our results indicate, while post-nuclear option nominees are not significantly more liberal, they are being confirmed more often and more quickly, allowing Obama and Senate Democrats to more efficiently fill the federal judiciary with Democratic-leaning judges.

scholarly journals Non-Capital Habeas Cases after Appellate Review: An Empirical Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. King
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Law School ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Vanderbilt University

In 2007, researchers from the National Center for State Courts and Vanderbilt University Law School reported the findings from a study of litigation in 2384 randomly selected, non-capital habeas cases, approximately 6.5% of the non-capital habeas cases commenced in federal district courts in 2003 and 2004 by state prisoners. In this article, I update that report, including the cases that were pending when the 2007 report was prepared, following the study cases into the federal courts of appeals, and back into the state courts. Even after appellate review of denials and dismissals, the percentage of non-capital petitioners receiving federal habeas relief remains less than the 1% rate reported prior to AEDPA. Descriptive findings include appeals and requests to file successive petitions by circuit, and rulings on certificates of appealability by circuit. Detailed information regarding each case receiving relief in federal court is also included.

scholarly journals Affirmative Power to Strip State Courts of Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dorf
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Essential Role ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Laws ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional System

The very substantial literature on the scope of congressional power to strip courts of jurisdiction contains a gap: it does not discuss the source of the affirmative power of Congress to strip state courts of their jurisdiction. Laws granting exclusive federal court jurisdiction over some category of cases are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts, but what power does Congress exercise when it strips both state and federal courts of jurisdiction? The answer depends on the nature of the case. In stripping all courts of the power to hear federal statutory claims and challenges to federal statutes, Congress exercises whatever affirmative power authorizes the substantive statute. However, Congress lacks affirmative power to strip all courts of the power to hear constitutional challenges to state laws. That conclusion is important in its own right but also complements views—such as Henry Hart’s contention that the Supreme Court must have such jurisdiction as necessary to play its “essential role” in our constitutional system—about the scope and limits of congressional power under the Exceptions Clause of Article III. The limit on affirmative congressional power to strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to state laws ensures that there will be cases over which the Supreme Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction in order to play its essential role.

scholarly journals Suffer the Little Children to Come: The Legal Rights of Unaccompanied Alien Children under United States Federal Court Jurisprudence

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
Claire Nolasco Braaten ◽  
Daniel Braaten
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Unaccompanied Minors ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article analyses United States (US) federal court jurisprudence to determine the legal rights of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in various stages of immigration enforcement proceedings. After briefly discussing statistics on UAC in the US, it explains the legal context of US laws governing unaccompanied minors. Through examining 40 cases decided by the 12 US Circuit Courts of Appeals and various federal district courts, the article specifies how these courts interpreted and expanded on the procedural legal rights of UAC upon apprehension by immigration officials, during placement or detention decisions of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), prior to voluntary departure, during asylum proceedings, when rearrested after release, and while released pending immigration proceedings. According to the US federal courts, the government must grant unaccompanied minors procedural due process if it denies their release to the custody of an available and willing legal custodian. Case law examining the rights of UAC prior to voluntary departure emphasizes the need to grant them the opportunity to consult with a responsible adult, including a lawyer from a free legal services list that should be provided to them. Federal courts have also tackled various procedural issues concerning asylum claims filed by UAC. These include the right of third parties to custody of the unaccompanied minor, the minority age at the time of the asylum application, and the right of UAC to request consent for a state juvenile court’s jurisdiction prior to applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. In removal proceedings against UAC, federal courts have elaborated on the scope and meaning of the right to counsel and the right to a bond rehearing upon their rearrest because of allegations of gang membership. Finally, federal courts have also examined issues concerning the rights of UAC while detained in ORR facilities and while in US territory. These include the right of an unaccompanied alien child to terminate a pregnancy while in ORR custody and the right not to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse while placed in a detention facility.

scholarly journals Unintended Consequences, Loopholes, and Gibberish

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-185
Author(s):  
Brian Elzweig
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Class Action ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Law ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
National Importance ◽  
Beaver County

This Article examines Congress’s decades-long attempt to ensure that securities class action lawsuits of national importance are litigated in federal courts. The intent is limiting strike suits. Congress attempted to curtail strike suits through the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). The PSLRA required heightened pleading requirements to ensure the validity of federal securities class actions. Instead of solving the dilemma, plaintiffs circumvented the PSLRA by bringing fraud cases as state law claims. To combat the circumvention of the PSLRA, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”). SLUSA federally preempted state law claims based on alleged misrepresentations, untrue statements, or omissions of material facts, requiring them to be brought in federal court. However, SLUSA did not address the concurrent jurisdiction provision of the Securities Act of 1933. This created an anomaly whereby many federal claims under the 1933 Act were brought in state courts, while state fraud claims were required to be brought in federal court. Congress could have addressed this enigma when it enacted the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Instead, CAFA, which reformed class actions generally, exempted most securities class actions from its rules. In 2018, the Supreme Court decided Cyan v. Beaver County and allowed 1933 Act claims covered by SLUSA to continue to be brought in state courts. The Court was silent on non-covered securities. This Article recommends how Congress can accomplish its goal of forcing important securities class actions into federal courts.

Evaluation of 99mTc-Label led Vitamin K4 as an Agent for Testicular Imaging

1991 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 35-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. S. Durak ◽  
M. Kitapgi ◽  
B. E. Caner ◽  
R. Senekowitsch ◽  
M. T. Ercan
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Left Testis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Activity Ratios ◽  
The Right ◽  
Radioactivity Levels

Vitamin K4 was labelled with 99mTc with an efficiency higher than 97%. The compound was stable up to 24 h at room temperature, and its biodistribution in NMRI mice indicated its in vivo stability. Blood radioactivity levels were high over a wide range. 10% of the injected activity remained in blood after 24 h. Excretion was mostly via kidneys. Only the liver and kidneys concentrated appreciable amounts of radioactivity. Testis/soft tissue ratios were 1.4 and 1.57 at 6 and 24 h, respectively. Testis/blood ratios were lower than 1. In vitro studies with mouse blood indicated that 33.9 ±9.6% of the radioactivity was associated with RBCs; it was washed out almost completely with saline. Protein binding was 28.7 ±6.3% as determined by TCA precipitation. Blood clearance of 99mTc-l<4 in normal subjects showed a slow decrease of radioactivity, reaching a plateau after 16 h at 20% of the injected activity. In scintigraphic images in men the testes could be well visualized. The right/left testis ratio was 1.08 ±0.13. Testis/soft tissue and testis/blood activity ratios were highest at 3 h. These ratios were higher than those obtained with pertechnetate at 20 min post injection.99mTc-l<4 appears to be a promising radiopharmaceutical for the scintigraphic visualization of testes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document