Jaffee v. Redmond: The Supreme Court recognizes a psychotherapist–patient privilege in federal courts.

1997 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Knapp ◽  
Leon VandeCreek
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

scholarly journals Retiring Forum Non Conveniens

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
New York University ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Scope Of Application

92 New York University Law Review 390 (2017)When it comes to transnational litigation in the federal courts, it is time to retire the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine, which allows judges to decline jurisdiction in cases they believe would be better heard in foreign courts, is meant to promote international comity and protect defendant fairness. But it is not well-designed for the former purpose, and given recent developments at the Supreme Court, it is dangerously redundant when it comes to the latter. This Article seeks to demythologize forum non conveniens, to question its continuing relevance, and to encourage the courts and Congress to narrow its scope of application so that, when the time is right, it may be fully interred.

Rule Creation in a Political Hierarchy

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 622-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLIFFORD J. CARRUBBA ◽  
TOM S. CLARK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Principal Agent ◽  
Agent Model ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Hierarchy ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Principal Agent Model ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Judicial Hierarchy

Principal-agent relations are replete in politics; politicians are agents of electorates, bureaucrats are agents of executives, lower courts are agents of upper courts, and much more. Commonly, principals are modeled as the rule-making body and agents as the rule-implementing body. However, principals often delegate the authority to make the rules themselves to their agents. The relationship between the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court is one such example; a considerable portion of the law (rules) is made in the lower federal courts with the Supreme Court serving primarily as the overseer of those lower courts’ decisions. In this article, we develop and test a principal-agent model of law (rule) creation in a judicial hierarchy. The model yields new insights about the relationship among various features of the judicial hierarchy that run against many existing perceptions. For example, we find a non-monotonic relationship between the divergence in upper and lower court preferences over rules and the likelihood of review and reversal by the Supreme Court. The empirical evidence supports these derived relationships. Wider implications for the principal-agent literature are also discussed.

scholarly journals Federalists, Federalism, and Federal Jurisdiction

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison L. LaCroix
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Early National ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Political Turmoil

Historians and legal scholars generally agree that during John Marshall's tenure as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, the federal judiciary expanded its power to interpret the Constitution and asserted with increasing force its authority to speak on behalf of the Union. This single story of judicial nationalism, however, contains two distinct and largely non-overlapping strands. Historians have tended to focus on the Supreme Court alone, to the exclusion of the lower federal courts, and have largely treated early national controversies over the lower federal courts as outgrowths of the political turmoil that accompanied the emergence of the first party system. Legal scholars in the fields of federal courts and constitutional law, meanwhile, have devoted significant attention to the lower federal courts but have largely neglected the history of how those courts developed beyond the key early moments of the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress.

In Search of a Coherent Theory of Voting Rights: Challenges to the Supreme Court's Vision of Fair and Effective Representation

1994 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Rush
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Political ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Realities ◽  
Effective Representation

The Supreme Court's approach to representation and redistricting has been grounded on a vision of fairness which extends only as far as the electoral process itself. Accordingly, the doctrine of one-person one-vote, as well as the Court's advocacy of remedial redistricting measures, has focused on ensuring that the electoral routes to legislative representation remained open. Recently, a new wave of challenges to this approach has arisen in legal scholarship and the lower federal courts because its focus on maintaining an open and pluralist political process overlooks the political realities of governing: gaining representation means little if one remains an impotent minority. This article assesses the merits of this new “neopluralist” challenge and the extent to which the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have already begun to incorporate some of its elements. The article concludes by pointing out that this incorporation has led to the establishment of two lines of precedent which are based on irreconcilable notions of representation.

ABSTENTION AT THE BORDER

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Error ◽  
Hard Cases

The lower federal courts have been invoking “international comity abstention” to solve a wide array of problems in cross-border cases. In doing so, they are using a wide array of tests that vary not just across the circuits, but within them as well. That confusion will only grow, as both scholars and the Supreme Court have yet to clarify what exactly “international comity abstention” entails. Meanwhile, the breadth of “international comity abstention” stands in tension with the Supreme Court’s renewed embrace of the federal judiciary’s virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given to the courts by Congress. Indeed, loose applications of “international comity abstention” risk undermining not only the interests of Congress, but the interests of the states as well.This Article argues against “international comity abstention” both as a label and as a generic doctrine. As a label, it has led courts to conflate abstention with other comity doctrines that are not about abstention at all, increasing the risk of judicial error and jeopardizing federalism protections. And as a generic doctrine, it encourages judges to decline their jurisdiction too readily, in contrast to the Court’s emphasis on the principle of jurisdictional obligation. The solution, however, is not to deny all judicial discretion to decline jurisdiction. Even if such a complete bar on abstention were intended as an act of judicial humility, it may serve to empower the judiciary instead. Absolute rules, whether based on constitutional limits or strict textualism, can override or exclude the other branches’ views regarding the proper scope of transnational litigation in U.S. courts. Leaving some space for judicial discretion to decline jurisdiction also leaves some space for the other branches to continue that conversation.In lieu of a single broad doctrine of “international comity abstention,” then, this Article proposes identifying more narrow bases for abstention in transnational litigation — bases that can be separately justified, candidly addressed, and analyzed through judicially manageable frameworks. In particular, the federal courts need a clear and consistent framework for when to stay cases in light of parallel litigation in foreign courts. A separate doctrine for deferring to foreign comprehensive remedial schemes may also be appropriate.Evaluating the doctrinal design of abstention in transnational litigation also serves as a lens through which to revisit a long-standing debate: To the extent that the principle of jurisdictional obligation reflects separation-of-powers concerns, those concerns can be addressed without insisting that judges’ hands are tied. True judicial humility recognizes both Congress’s role in defining the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the impossibility of asking judges to read Congress’s mind. Leaving space for carefully cabined discretion in hard cases recognizes both the complexity of life and the continuing need for inter-branch dialogue.

7 International Human Rights Litigation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

This chapter focuses on litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides for jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for torts in violation of international law. The chapter begins by exploring Congress’s likely intent in enacting the Statute in 1789, and how the Statute may have related to Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the federal courts). The chapter then describes how the Statute received little attention until the Filartiga decision in 1980, which allowed for it to be used by aliens to sue other aliens for human rights abuses committed abroad. The chapter proceeds to explore a variety of doctrinal issues relating to this human rights litigation, including the source of the cause of action, the standards for bringing a claim, and the ability to sue corporations. The chapter also considers the contours of the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress enacted in 1992 to facilitate certain human rights claims. The chapter then discusses limitations on Alien Tort Statute litigation imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as the rise of suits brought against corporate defendants brought under the Statute. The chapter concludes by discussing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court substantially curtailed the territorial reach of claims that could be brought under the Statute, and the Court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the Court disallowed suits under the Statute against foreign corporations.

scholarly journals Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 464-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reginald S. Sheehan ◽  
William Mishler ◽  
Donald R. Songer
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Time Series Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Series Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court

A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the “haves” usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document