Research Gets Organized, 1880s–1930s

2018 ◽  
pp. 164-202
Author(s):  
John B. Nann ◽  
Morris L. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Reporter System ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Comprehensive Collection ◽  
Federal Case ◽  
United States Code

This chapter examines the creation of a better-organized world of legal research through the development and refinement of several legal research tools. The federal government made its first attempt at codification in 1873. At roughly the same time, West Publishing Company began producing a comprehensive collection of state and federal case reporters, which came to be known as the National Reporter System. West also applied the concept of case law digests to the National Reporter System, thus offering legal researchers a comprehensive collection of cases and tools that provided a consistent topical arrangement of case law. By listing every reported case that cited a given case and indicating how the subsequent treated the earlier, citators became a valuable research tool for attorneys. The era reached its climax of successful federal law codification with the publication in 1925 of the United States Code, using the organization developed for the federal government by West.

scholarly journals Representing Veterans

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-122
Author(s):  
Jennifer D. Oliva
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Department Of Veterans Affairs ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Case ◽  
Federal Statute ◽  
The Right

Federal law has long deprived American veterans of certain fundamental legal rights enjoyed by non-veterans and attributable to veteran sacrifice. Federal case law, for example, denies veterans the right to bring an action in tort against the federal government to vindicate in-service injuries. And the United States Code deprives veterans of their right to robust judicial oversight of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) service-connected benefit decisions. This pair of due process deprivations is compounded by the federal statute that prohibits veterans from exercising the fundamental right to counsel during the initial stage of the VA claims process. This Article examines the federal statutory scheme and pertinent case law that has long denied veterans the right to counsel throughout the VA veteran claims adjudication process, debunks the rationales underlying that law, and concludes by recommending that the federal government extend to veterans the right to counsel throughout the VA’s benefits adjudication proceedings.

The Criminalization of Immigration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Chacón
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Criminal Legal System

The regulation of immigration in the United States is a civil law matter, and the deportation and exclusion of immigrants from the United States are matters adjudicated in civil, administrative courts operated by the federal government. But migration in the United States is increasingly managed not through the civil law system, but through the criminal legal system, and not just at the federal level, but at all levels of government. The most obvious example of the management of migration through the criminal law in the United States occurs through the federal prosecution of immigration crimes. In the 2010s, federal prosecutions of immigration crimes reached all-time record highs, as immigration offenses became the most commonly prosecuted federal criminal offenses. But it is not just the federal government, using federal criminal prosecutions, that has moved criminal law and criminal law enforcement agents to the center of immigration enforcement in the United States. The federal government relies on state and local police to serve as front-line agents in the identification of noncitizens potentially subject to removal. Everyone arrested by state and local law enforcement for any reason has their fingerprints run through federal law databases, and this has become the leading screening mechanism through which the federal government identifies individuals to target for removal. Federal law also relies on state law convictions as one of the primary means through which federal immigration enforcement officials determine which noncitizens to remove. This means that state legislatures and state and local governments have the power to shape both their criminal laws and their discretionary enforcement choices to either enhance or mitigate the scope of federal immigration enforcement in their jurisdictions. The problems of racial inequity in the U.S. criminal legal system are both exacerbated by and fuel the centrality of immigration enforcement to the nation’s law enforcement agenda. Racial profiling is broadly tolerated by law in the context of immigration enforcement, making it easy for officials at the state and federal level to justify the targeting of the Latinx population for heightened surveillance on the theory (often incorrect) that they are unlawfully present. At the same time, the overpolicing of Black communities ensures that Black immigrants as well as Latinx immigrants are disproportionately identified as priorities for removal. Immigration enforcement is frequently written out of the story of racial inequality in U.S. policing, but the criminalization of migration is a central architectural feature of this inequitable system.

Expenses of Sovereignty

2021 ◽  
pp. 169-198
Author(s):  
Gregory Ablavsky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Funds ◽  
National Welfare

When criminal law and command failed, federal officials came to rely on federal finance to try to secure peace between Natives and U.S. citizens, as this chapter depicts. Both Native and white claimants demanded that the federal government compensate them for the violence they suffered at each others’ hands. Increasingly, the federal government did so, paying both Natives and whites for the constant murders, horse thefts, and abduction of enslaved human property that plagued both federal territories. Still more money went to the territories to satisfy Native leaders’ expectations for what federal officials called “presents” and to fund the expensive military “protection” that territorial citizens demanded. Federal officials reluctantly spent these increasingly large sums of money to secure the doubtful allegiances of these borderlands residents; their goal was to foster dependence on the federal government. Arguably, they failed. Native leaders espoused a gendered rhetoric of poverty and weakness, but they successfully extracted federal funds precisely because of their considerable power. Constitutionally, the territories were dependencies of the United States, but territorial citizens rejected any suggestion of subordination, demanding vast sums for militia actions—even when at odds with federal law—as part of the federal government’s obligation to protect its citizens. In the process, both sets of claimants relied on the federal government as the venue to make claims and redress grievances. But only Natives were tagged with the dependent label even as their white neighbors proved far more effective at extracting federal largesse, prefiguring later dynamics in the rise of the national welfare state.

scholarly journals Emergency Declarations and Tribes: Mechanisms Under Tribal and Federal Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Sunshine ◽  
Aila Hoss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
American Indians ◽  
Alaska Native ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Treaty Rights ◽  
Sovereign Nations ◽  
Trust Responsibility ◽  
Unites States

Gregory Sunshine & Aila Hoss, Emergency Declarations and Tribes: Mechanisms Under Tribal and Federal Law, 24 Mich. St. Int'l L. Rev. 34 (2015)Tribes are sovereign nations that maintain a government-to-government relationship with the Unites States. There are currently 567 federally recognized tribes throughout the contiguous United States and Alaska. As sovereign nations, tribal authority cannot be infringed upon by states; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress holds the authority to legislate on issues related to tribes and American Indians and Alaska Natives. The federal government also maintains a trust responsibility towards tribes based on treaties, agreements, statutes, and case law. This trust responsibility, known as the Trust Doctrine, is 'a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.

The Deportation State

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-102
Author(s):  
Adam B. Cox ◽  
Cristina M. Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Immigration Legislation ◽  
Regulatory Machinery ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
The Government ◽  
First Time

This chapter examines the legal and bureaucratic transformations that gave rise to the deportation power in its contemporary form, providing a better understanding of how it operates as a significant source of presidential power. The story begins in the late nineteenth century, when Congress effectively created the legal authority and bureaucratic capacity the Executive needed to conduct immigration enforcement within the nation’s interior. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the rise of federal immigration legislation during this period did not mark a sharp break with an earlier, mythical period when the United States welcomed all comers. But it was not until this time that Congress began building the regulatory machinery for selecting immigrants that would turn the federal government into a potent force for controlling immigration. For the first time since the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress enacted laws making resident noncitizens deportable. Just as important, Congress began constructing institutions that would enable the federal government to turn the growing law of deportation into a reality on the ground. Today, deportation occupies much of the field of federal law enforcement. Indeed, the government deports hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year—far more people than are incarcerated in the entire federal prison system. In this chapter, we explain how this reality came to be.

scholarly journals Legal Challenges For Text-Message Marketers

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Traci Warrington ◽  
Michael T. Brady
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Wireless Communication ◽  
Text Messaging ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Text Message ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Challenges

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 34.2pt 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">As text-messaging usage climbs in the United States, marketers are scrambling to find ways to integrate this new technology into the marketing communications mix.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Marketers must, however, be mindful of current U.S. Law &ndash; federal and state &ndash; which may restrict text message use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Although no current federal law exists to specifically regulate text-message marketing, several wireless communication laws, anti-spamming laws, and case law may apply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>This paper reviews the current statistics and trends regarding usage of text-message marketing in the United States, presents &ldquo;spamming&rdquo; opportunities, reviews current federal law and state law by example, and makes recommendations to marketers considering use of text-message marketing.</span></span></p>

Thinking About Scots Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Rodger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
British Empire ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Memorial Lecture ◽  
University Of Edinburgh ◽  
The University

This article is the revised text of the first W A Wilson Memorial Lecture, given in the Playfair Library, Old College, in the University of Edinburgh, on 17 May 1995. It considers various visions of Scots law as a whole, arguing that it is now a system based as much upon case law and precedent as upon principle, and that its departure from the Civilian tradition in the nineteenth century was part of a general European trend. An additional factor shaping the attitudes of Scots lawyers from the later nineteenth century on was a tendency to see themselves as part of a larger Englishspeaking family of lawyers within the British Empire and the United States of America.

“The Greatest Nation on Earth”

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K.M. Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Mexico ◽  
Texas Revolution

Between 1820 and 1827 approximately 1,800 U.S. citizens immigrated to northern Mexico as part of that country’s empresario program, in which the federal government granted foreigners land if they promised to develop and secure the region. Historians have long argued that these settlers, traditionally seen as the vanguard of Manifest Destiny, were attracted to Mexico for its cheap land and rich natural resources. Such interpretations have lent a tone of inevitability to events like the Texas Revolution. This article argues that the early members of these groups were attracted to Mexico for chiefly political reasons. At a time when the United States appeared to be turning away from its commitment to a weak federal government, Mexico was establishing itself on a constitution that insured local sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, the Texas Revolution was far from the result of two irreconcilable peoples and cultures. Moreover, the role that these settlers played in the United States’ acquisition of not just Texas, but ultimately half of Mexico’s national territory, was more paradoxical than inevitable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document