16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, and the Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons from Attempted Reform
Get PDFOn multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip future would-be reformers with insights that might facilitate some degree of success
From the Northern Plains to the Carolina Coast: An Environmental Perspective on Nationwide Injunctions
Get PDFThis Note offers a perspective on nationwide injunctions informed by a selection of environmental cases from roughly the last two decades. In doing so, it attempts to draw broader conclusions about when, if ever, federal courts should prohibit the enforcement of environmental policies nationwide. This Note proceeds as follows: Part I defines “nationwide injunction,” discusses the recent history of nationwide injunctions against the federal executive branch, and describes the absence of a clear legal standard governing nationwide relief. Part II examines six environmental cases in which plaintiffs have sought, or federal courts have ordered, nationwide relief. Part III suggests that, in the context of environmental law, nationwide injunctions are justified when necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs and, as such, should remain an available remedy to the federal courts. However, Part III also argues that several of the rationales offered to support nationwide injunctions beyond providing complete relief should be retired.
This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction
The Promise and Perils of Textualism for Environmental Advocacy
Get PDFThis Note argues that a reliance on textualist arguments to win environmental victories from conservative judges in the new judicial landscape involves a simplistic view of judicial decision-making, according to which a method of constitutional or statutory interpretation is dispositive of a given ruling. Methods of interpretation interact with other factors, including judges’ ideological and institutional commitments, in determining cases. Textualism is a method of constitutional interpretation favored by conservative judges, but it is also part of a broader suite of conservative commitments and attitudes that complicate the role of textualism and may counteract textualism’s perceived benefit for environmental causes. The upshot is that a strong focus on textualism as a way to cope in the new judicial landscape may do more harm than good for the goal of environmental advocacy.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
