We will finish Non-Article III Jurisdiction. On the "§ 1259 is invalid" argument, what about SCOTUS review of state courts, D.C., and Puerto Rico? What is the argument that § 1259 is valid? What makes CAAF different (around the term "adjudication") from James Madison refusing to deliver Marbury's commission? Then move to Magistrates, with a detailed focus on § 636, and Bankruptcy Courts. For bankruptcy, look at 28 U.S.C. § 157 and 28 U.S.C. § 158, which establish the process for bankruptcy cases (somewhat similar to magistrates). As to both, what is the connection between the non-Article III adjudicator and the Article III district judge?
We move to Eleventh Amendment and the next panel. For tomorrow, we will touch on the background to sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. Read the Amendment, along with Pfander pp. 249-56 and Chemerinsky pp. 445-62. What are the competing theories of the Eleventh Amendment's meaning? Where does sovereign immunity come from and what is its purpose? What does it mean to say "The king can do no wrong?" What happened in Chisholm and how did the Eleventh Amendment respond?
Finally, a last word on our discussion from today about DJs and injunctions. We said a DJ is sufficient in many patent cases, particularly involving parties, such as Genentech and Medimmune, who enjoy a business relationship; they need the determination of rights, not necessarily the judicial restriction on conduct. And the business relationship establishes some level of trust Not always, of course, as this Eleventh Circuit case shows, where one of the parties is a bad actor. The restriction on conduct and the contempt hammer become necessary. This also shows some of the issues arising from J.J.'s question about who an injunction binds.
