Thursday, September 3, 2015

For Tuesday

Thursday audio. Commentaries on Supreme Court Jurisdiction due at start of class Tuesday.

We will finish Courts of Appeals with Gulfstream. Consider all possible means of seeking to review a district court and why all were not satisfied in this case

We then turn to Jurisdiction of Federal District Courts. Read Overview, Removal (both of these involve multiple statutory provisions), and Arising Under Jurisdiction--Arising Under. In addition to the assigned statutes, download 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), which is the jurisdictional provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Understand how the removal process works. Think about the connections between the jurisdictional grants in Art. III § 2 and the statutory jurisdictional grants in § 1331 and the other statutes. What are the policies, benefits, and drawbacks of the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule? Note three different ways Congress can grant district courts jurisdiction over cases that "arise under" federal law.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

For Thursday

Tuesday audio. Commentaries for those doing Supreme Court are due at the start of class next Tuesday.

We will continue with Courts of Appeals, covering both Final Judgments and Interlocutory Appeals. We will begin where we left off: Why doesn't the "right not to stand trial"/"right not to be liable" line work? How does Will alter the analysis of the third prong? What does Mohawk tell us about the second prong? How does the availability of other appellate routes affect the collateral order doctrine?

What are the possible sources of rules allowing for interlocutory appeals? Where do they fall on the as-of-right/discretion and categorical/case-by-case lines? Why make decisions on injunctions immediately reviewable under § 1292(a)?

Finally, we will use Gulfstream as a good review of all the different mechanisms.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

For Tuesday

Thursday audio.

We will finish with Supreme Court with our discussion of Camreta. Consider: Does the Court have Art. III jurisdiction to hear a winner's petition? Why does the Court ordinarily not do so? Why did it do so here? Commentaries on this topic will be due on Tuesday, September 8.

We then turn to Jurisdiction of Federal Courts of Appeals. Read both sections, to consider both the Final Judgment Rule and the various exceptions and work-arounds to the final judgment rule. In addition, have a look at Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Obviously, there are a number of statutes and rules assigned (several from the blog); take the time to read them closely and carefully. Bobby and Cara are on panel.

Look at Gulfstream as a nice review of all the different doctrines. Again, consider both the narrowest definition of finality and other, broader, more flexible definitions. What are the benefits of limiting appeals only to final judgments? What are the drawbacks to requiring finality? What explains the exceptions to finality?

Also, consider the following hypo: On June 17, he district court enters a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the merits, although it still had to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to fees (it did so eight days later). Is the June 17 order final?

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

For Thursday

Tuesday audio.

Complete the reading on SCOTUS, including Finality and Review of Federal Courts of Appeals. In addition to the provisions assigned, also review 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We will begin with Michigan v. Long and independent-and-adequate. Look at the discussion of the four approaches to I/A--what are they, what are the benefits and problems with each, and why did the Court settle on the approach that it did.

Consider the following:
   • What sorts of state rules may provide independent-and-adequate grounds?
   • What is the narrowest possible meaning of "final judgment or decree." Why did the Court reject that interpretation? When might a judgment or decree be final? Why limit jurisdiction only to final judgments? Read the discussion of Cox Broadcasting carefully.
   • When can SCOTUS take a case from a federal court of appeals?
   • What are the arguments for and against prevailing-party-appeals, as discussed in Camreta.
 

Friday, August 21, 2015

Panel Assignments (Updated)

Supreme Court: Amanda/Karissa

Courts of Appeals: Bobby/Cara

District Courts/Non-Article III: Amanda/Juan

Eleventh Amendment: Juan/Bobby

Standing: Amanda/Cara

Ripeness/Mootness: Bobby/Karissa

Abstention: General/Pullman: Cara/Bobby

Abstention: Younger: Amanda/Juan

Abstention: Colorado: Cara/Karissa

Congress: Juan/Karissa

Thursday, August 20, 2015

For Tuesday

Thursday audio.

On Tuesday, we turn to Supreme Court Review of State Court Judgments; we are going to cover Power of Review and Independent and Adequate State Grounds first (we will get to Finality on Thursday), so note that change in the assignment shedule. Be sure to look at the pre-1988 version of § 1257 (on the blog). Consider:
   • What are the reasons/policies behind allowing SCOTUS to review state court decisions
   • What is the difference between writs of certiorari and writs of error? What are the two roles that SCOTUS performs? How does the difference between writs of error and writs of cert affect which role predominates?
   • What does "Independent and Adequate State Ground" mean? What are the competing approaches to determining whether a decision rests on such grounds? What are the benefits and drawbacks to the current approach, established in Long?

Amanda is on panel for SCOTUS jurisdiction, joined by Karissa.

As I indicated in my email, I need Amanda, Juan, or Cara to trade one of their current panels for Colorado River Abstention; please email me if you are willing to switch and what you will trade. Once I have that, I can post the final panel schedule.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

For Thursday

Tuesday audio.

Please review the Syllabus and Course Evaluation Information; I will answer questions about assignments, etc., at the beginning of class. Also, select the four (4) subjects you want to be on panel for.

We will continue with Introduction, where we left off on the power of other branches to engage in constitutional analysis. Consider the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. Read the two excerpts on judicial activism--does the concept have any meaning? And, if it does, is it a bad thing?

We then turn to Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, starting with Original Jurisdiction. Amanda and Ryan are on panel, but everyone should be ready to engage in the discussion. Read Marbury closely, focusing on what actually was going on in the case, what the disputed law involved and how the Court resolved the constitutional question. Please note that you should only read Parts I and II of the majority in Kansas v. Nebraska--don't worry about the concurrences and dissents or the substantive discussion in the majority.

That is as far as we're going to get Thursday, so don't worry about moving to Review of State Court Judgments.