DOCSLIB.ORG

Professors of International Litigation Amicus Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Professors of International Litigation Amicus Brief No. 16-1220 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF OF PROFESSORS OF INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY JONATHAN S. MASSEY Counsel of Record MASSEY & GAIL, LLP 1325 G St. N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 652-4511 [email protected] Dated: March 2, 2018 BATEMAN & SLADE, INC. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI ................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................1 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5 I. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS ABSTENTION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL COMITY IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................5 II. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL COMITY CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND THREATENS TO SUPPLANT MORE NARROWLY TAILORED DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL COMITY ..............9 A. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ABSTENTION DOCTRINE CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ........................9 i 1. The Second Circuit’s Abstention Doctrine Conflicts With This Court’s Prescriptive Comity Decisions ............ 10 2. The Second Circuit’s Abstention Doctrine Conflicts With This Court’s Adjudicative Comity Decisions ............ 15 B. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ABSTENTION DOCTRINE THREATENS TO SUPPLANT MORE NARROWLY TAILORED DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL COMITY .................................... 17 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 21 APPENDIX ................................................................ 23 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: AAR Int’l, Inc. v. Nimelias Enters. S.A., 250 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2001) .......................... 10 Al-Abood v. El-Shamari, 217 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2000) .......................... 10 Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994) ..........................................7 Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2009) .......................... 10 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) ..........................................7 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519 (1839) .............................6 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ........................ 15 Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) ........................ 4, 10, 15, 16 Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962) ........................................ 18 iii Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3 (1973) ..............................................8 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2004) ..........................................7 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) .......................... 4, 6, 13, 15 French v. Liebmann (In re French), 440 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2006) .......................... 14 Gross v. German Found. Indus. Initiative, 456 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2006) ............................ 10 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) .............................. 2, 12, 18 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) ..........................................6 In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016) .................... passim Interamerican Refining Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291 (D. Del. 1970) ................... 18 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) ...................................... 7, 8 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ........................................ 16 iv Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979) .......... 2, 11, 13, 18 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) ........................................ 18 Maxwell Commc’n Corp. v. Societe Generale (In re Maxwell Commc’n Corp.), 93 F.3d 1036 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................ 14 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) .............................. 4, 13, 14 Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................... 10 O.N.E. Shipping Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 830 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................... 11, 20 Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) ..........................................6 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 246 (1981) ................................... 9, 16 Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) ........................................ 16 Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304 (1918) .................................. 19, 20 RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) ........................ 4, 6, 7, 14 v Royal & Sun All. Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int’l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................... 9, 10 Societe Internationale pour Participation Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) ........................... 17 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., N.T. & S.A., 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976) ...................... 2, 11 Trugman-Nash, Inc. v. N.Z. Dairy Bd., 954 F. Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) .................. 18 Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) ...................... 10 W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U.S. 400 (1990) ............................ 17, 19, 20 STATUTES: 15 U.S.C. § 1 ...................................................... 1, 2, 16 15 U.S.C. § 6a ............................................................ 13 Securities Exchange Act § 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) ............................................ 13 28 U.S.C. § 1330 ..........................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)-(4) ............................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f) ......................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) ......................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1602-1611 .................................................7 Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976) ...................7 vi RULES: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1..........................8 OTHER AUTHORITIES: A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Comm’n (“Wood Pulp”), 1988 E.C.R. 5193 (European Court of Justice) ........................... 12 Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation § 4.2.2 (2017) ................................................... 18 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germ. v. It.), 2012 I.C.J. 97 (Feb. 3) ..................................................................... 12 North Sea Continental Shelf (Germ. v. Den.; Germ. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20) ....................................................... 12 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 403 (Am. Law Inst. 1987)................................................................ 12 Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Jurisdiction (Am. Law Inst., Tentative Draft No. 2, 2016)........................................ 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 vii Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Jurisdiction (Am. Law Inst., Tentative Draft No. 3, 2017).................................................. 5, 6, 14, 15 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (Nat’l Conference of Comm’rs on Unif. State Laws 2005) ..............................................7 William S. Dodge, International Comity in American Law, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 2071 (2015) ........................................... 6, 8 viii INTEREST OF AMICI Amici curiae are professors of international litigation with expertise in the various doctrines of U.S. law based on international comity. They have a strong interest in the proper application of these doctrines by U.S. courts. A list of amici and their qualifications is provided in the appendix.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Petitioners alleged that respondents and their co-conspirators established a cartel to fix the prices of vitamin C exported to the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Respondents did not deny the allegations but rather claimed that their actions had been required by Chinese law, and respondents moved to dismiss the complaints under the act of state doctrine, the doctrine of foreign sovereign compulsion, and principles of international comity. In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175, 180 (2d Cir. 2016). The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China filed an amicus brief supporting respondents, which represented that under Chinese law all vitamin C legally exported during the relevant time had to be sold at coordinated prices. Id. at 182. The district court rejected each of respondents’ three defenses, both upon a motion to 1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Petitioners’ consent is on file with the Clerk. On February 15, 2018, Respondents filed a blanket consent letter with the Clerk. No counsel for any party has authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel has made any monetary contribution intended to fund the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria
    012306 03_CHOPER .DOC 2/6/2006 10:19 AM THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE: SUGGESTED CRITERIA JESSE H. CHOPER† ABSTRACT Whether there should be a political question doctrine and, if so, how it should be implemented continue to be contentious and controversial issues, both within and outside the Court. This Article urges that the Justices should reformulate the detailed definition that they have utilized (at least formally) since 1962, and adopt four criteria to be applied in future cases. The least disputed—textual commitment—is the initial factor listed in Baker v. Carr. The other three are based on functional considerations rather than constitutional language or original understanding. The first of these—structural issues: federalism and separation of powers—has been advanced and developed at length in my earlier work. It is based on a comparative advantage of the political process over the Court in sound constitutional decisionmaking respecting the relevant issues, as well as the trustworthiness respecting fundamental values of the national legislative/executive branches in doing so. The remaining two criteria involve removing questions of individual rights from the judiciary's realm, something that would (and should) occur very infrequently. The manageable standards test recognizes that there may be constitutional provisions for which the Court lacks the capacity to develop clear and coherent principles. The generalized grievance guide is similar in many ways to structural issues in that it is also grounded in matters of comparative advantage and trustworthiness of results. Copyright © 2005 Jesse H. Choper. † Earl Warren Professor of Public Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall). I wish to express appreciation to Katherine Florey, Boalt ‘04, for her exceptionally able assistance in preparing this Article , to my colleagues Daniel A.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Round-Up (July 2019)
    July 2, 2019 Vol. 11, No. 4 Overview The Supreme Court Round-Up previews upcoming cases, summarizes opinions, and tracks the actions of the Office of the Solicitor General. Each entry contains a description of the case, as well as a substantive analysis of the Court’s actions. October Term 2018 Argued Cases 1. Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 (M.D.N.C., 318 F. Supp. 3d 777, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726 (D. Md., 348 F. Supp. 3d 493); jurisdiction postponed Jan. 4, 2019; argued Mar. 26, 2019). The Questions Presented are: (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims. (2) Whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. (3) Whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Decided June 27, 2019 (588 U.S. __). M.D.N.C. and D. Md./Vacated and remanded. Chief Justice Roberts for a 5-4 Court (Kagan, J., dissenting, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, J.J.). The Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable political question because no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” exist for resolving them. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems, including partisan gerrymandering, when they chose to assign the task of districting to state legislatures. Specifically, the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers States to decide the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” for members of Congress, and grants Congress the authority to “make or alter” any such rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstention and the Constitutional Limits of the Judicial Power of the United States Calvin R
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1991 Abstention and the Constitutional Limits of the Judicial Power of the United States Calvin R. Massey UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Calvin R. Massey, Abstention and the Constitutional Limits of the Judicial Power of the United States, 1991 Brigham Young University Law Review 811 (1991). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1128 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstention and the Constitutional Limits of the Judicial Power of the United States Calvin R. Massey* I. INTRODUCTION The federal courts have by now firmly established a variety of doctrines by which they decline to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by Congress. The constitutional validity of these "ab- stention" doctrines has been challenged in recent years by Pro- fessor Martin Redish, who contends that "[j]udge-made absten- tion constitutes judicial lawmaking of the most sweeping nature."1 He characterizes the abstention doctrines "as a judicial usurpation of legislative authority, in violation of the principle of separation of powers."'2 To Professor Redish, judicial con- struction of "a jurisdictional statute that somehow vests a power in the federal courts to adjudicate the relevant claims without a corresponding duty to do so is unacceptable." 3 Redish's intellec- tual cohort, Professor Donald Doernberg, establishes the same point by invoking more directly the familiar admonition of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law Jurisdiction of the United States Courts
    YALE LAW JOURNAL VOL. XVII NOVEMBER, 1907 No. i THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS To me it seems clear, beyond question, that neither in the Constitution, nor in the statutes enacted by Congress, nor in the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States can there be found any substantial support for the proposition that, since the adoption of the Constitution, the principles of the Common Law have been wholly abrogated touching such matters as are by that instrument placed within the exclusive control of the National Goverment. (Judge Shiras in Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Rly. Co., 62 Fed. 24.) To whatever has required for its upbuilding the prolonged activity of countless men, in one generation after another, whether expressed in unconfined exertion of physical labor which produces for our astonishment a pyramid, a cathedral, or in endless mental effort which evolves for our wonder a science, an art, a system of law, men have always paid respect. As conferred upon a system of law, that respect has always, in English-speaking countries, been acorded to the Common Law. Law exists for justice, and Webster said: "The Common Law is a fcuntain of justice, perennial and per- petual." Rightly did he as a representative American pay this tribute, for to the founders ot this government there never had been another system of law. They were, in large measure, descendants of those Englishmen who, centuries back, had ceaselessly petitioned for YALE LAW JOURNAL recognition of their rights of person and property; had finally obtained them, and from that foundation had ever thereafter through their courts received justice as their due.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Equity Power
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 1-2018 The Federal Equity Power Michael T. Morley Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Courts Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons THE FEDERAL EQUITY POWER MICHAEL T. MORLEY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 219 I. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITY............................................................................. 224 II. AMERICAN EQUITY PRIOR TO ERIE .......................................................................................... 230 A. Equity Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................. 232 B. Equity Procedure ................................................................................................................ 236 C. Equitable Remedies............................................................................................................. 238 D. Equity and Substantive Rights ............................................................................................. 241 III. EQUITY IN THE POST-ERIE WORLD ......................................................................................... 244 A. Erie and General Law ......................................................................................................... 244 B. Guaranty Trust and Equity .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Courts
    Federal Courts Prof. Greve Law 226-001 Spring Semester 2020 Tues/Thurs 6:05 – 7:30pm Introduction and Overview Federal Courts is the most difficult course you will encounter in law school. It requires a reasonably accurate recollection of CivPro; and if you have not yet taken ConLaw I and, ideally, Administrative Law and perhaps Conflicts (and done tolerably well in those courses), none of this will make much sense to you. However: depending on your envisioned career, FedCourts may also be the most useful course. If you want to practice law in federal courts, in any capacity, you have to know this stuff (ideally, better than your opponents know it). We will use the standard textbook: RICHARD H. FALLON, JOHN F. MANNING, DANIEL J. MELTZER, & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART & WECHSLER’S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (7th Ed. 2015); 2019 Supplement. I strongly suggest you buy the book and the Supplement, mark up both in pencil and with tabs, and keep the book. I realize it’s expensive but it’s a worthwhile investment in your career. All other materials will be posted on TWEN. Attendance; Electronics; Course Participation I’ll take attendance, mostly to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. There’s no penalty for missing a class and no need for you to excuse any absence in advance. However, if you miss class too often, you’ll fall behind very quickly. And you are of course aware of the general attendance requirements. I very, very, very strongly discourage the use of laptops or any comparable device in class.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE in the COURTS: JURISDICTION and COMMON LAW LITIGATION
    Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE COURTS: JURISDICTION AND COMMON LAW LITIGATION SYNOPSIS I. The Uncertain Future of Climate Change Litigation II. Article III Standing A. Standing in Early Climate Change Cases B. Massachusetts v. EPA C. Post-Massachusetts Standing Analysis III. Is Climate Change a Nonjusticiable Political Question? IV. Are Claims Displaced or Preempted by the Clean Air Act? A. Federal Common Law Displacement B. Are State Law Claims Preempted? V. Could Common Law Doctrines Apply to Climate Change? A. Public Nuisance and Other Tort Claims 1. Breach of Duty: The Reasonableness of Defendants’ Actions 2. Causation 3. Damages B. The Atmospheric Trust 1. The Atmospheric Trust Theory 2. Atmospheric Trust Litigation I. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION In the 1990s, states and environmental groups began using litigation as a strategy to compel agency action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to force large greenhouse gas emitters to reduce their emissions or pay damages for the harm they caused. Suits against agencies typically arose under federal environmental statutes, most importantly the Clean Air Act. Suits against emitters typically proceeded under tort law and primarily alleged that the emitters had caused or contributed to a public nuisance. Despite the prevalence of environmental litigation in modern society and the long history of using the common law to remedy environmental harms, courts have struggled to fit climate change into statutory frameworks and common law doctrines. In particular, courts have displayed a reticence to accept jurisdiction over cases involving climate change. As this chapter explores, this reticence seems to have increased even after the Supreme Court found climate change claims justiciable in Massachusetts v.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism, Human Rights, and the Realpolitik of Footnote Four
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2003 Federalism, Human Rights, and the Realpolitik of Footnote Four Robert A. Destro The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Destro, Federalism, Human Rights, and the Realpolitik of Footnote Four, 12 WIDENER L. J. 373 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WIDENER LAW JOURNAL Copyright © 2003 by the Widener University School of Law VOLUME 12 2003 NUMBER 3 FEDERALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE REALPOLITIK OF FOOTNOTE FOUR Robert A. Destro* In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself Second It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society againstthe injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo
    Chapter 6 State and Federal Courts—Relationship and Interaction by John Pizzo Chapter Outline I. State and Federal Courts—Composition and Authority A. State Courts B. Federal Courts 1. Article III Courts 2. Other Federal Courts 3. Jurisdiction II. Dual Sovereignty and Concurrent Jurisdiction C. Dual Sovereignty D. Concurrent Jurisdiction III. Removal and Remand E. A Defendant’s Right of Removal F. A Plaintiff’s Ability to Remand IV. Federal Courts Applying State Law G. The Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law H. Certified Questions 77 Readings on the American Judical System V. Comity and Abstention I. Unclear Questions of State Law 1. Pullman Abstention Doctrine 2. Burford Abstention Doctrine J. Unnecessary Interference with Pending State Proceedings 1. Younger Abstention Doctrine 2. Rooker–Feldman Abstention Doctrine K. Avoiding Duplicative Litigation 1. Colorado River Abstention Doctrine VI. Conclusion VII. Endnotes his chapter will discuss the interplay between the state and federal court system. Beginning with a brief overview of the limited jurisdiction afforded federal courts, the chapter will move on to discuss Thow the two systems conflict and cooperate—depending on the particular situation. The chapter intends to explore several main areas. It will discuss the practice, including the bases and processes, of removing cases from state court to federal court and the reverse process of remanding them back to state court. The chapter will also examine when and why federal courts must apply state law, including when it is necessary to certify questions to state courts. Lastly, it will survey the various abstention doctrines and the underlying reasons federal courts invoke them, as well as the somewhat related concept of dual sovereignty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Question Doctrines
    American University Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 3 2018 The olitP ical Question Doctrines John Harrison University of Virginia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Harrison, John (2018) "The oP litical Question Doctrines," American University Law Review: Vol. 67 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The olitP ical Question Doctrines Keywords Non-judicial finality, Congressional adjudicative authority, Remedies that would direct political discretion This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss2/3 THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINES JOHN HARRISON* Much that is said about the political question doctrine is wrong. The doctrine as the Supreme Court has developed it is not a limit on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is, however, a limit on judicial power in its relations with political power. The doctrine has two branches. In one, courts treat certain legal decisions by political actors as conclusive. The leading example is recognition of states and governments, as to which the courts are bound by non-judicial decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Substantive Interests on the Law of Federal Courts
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 30 (1988-1989) Issue 3 Article 2 April 1989 The Impact of Substantive Interests on the Law of Federal Courts Michael Wells Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Repository Citation Michael Wells, The Impact of Substantive Interests on the Law of Federal Courts, 30 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 499 (1989), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol30/iss3/2 Copyright c 1989 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 30 SPRING 1989 NUMBER 3 THE IMPACT OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS ON THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS MICHAEL WELLS* Federal courts scholarship tends to focus on the reasoning and implications of Supreme Court decisions for specific jurisdictional problems, such as standing, Supreme Court review of state deci- sions, federal-state comity, and the eleventh amendment. Although this kind of scholarship is illuminating and useful, it is necessarily limited in its aspirations. Scholars pay too little attention to as- pects of the Court's work that transcend the case at hand or the area of doctrine in which it arises. To fully understand the law of federal courts, one must examine developments over a range of doctrinal categories and study the patterns that emerge from com- paring them. One such theme is the role of substantive interests in explaining federal courts doctrine. The thesis of this Article is that substan- tive factors exert a powerful and often unrecognized influence over the resolution of jurisdictional issues, and have done so throughout our history.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure of Standing
    Articles The Structure of Standing William A. Fletcher4 INTRODUCTION The structure of standing law in the federal courts has long been criti- cized as incoherent. It has been described as "permeated with sophistry,"' as "a word game played by secret rules,"2 and more recently as a largely meaningless "litany" recited before "the Court . chooses up sides and decides the case."' This unhappy state of affairs does not result from the unimportance of standing doctrine.4 If anything, the contrary is true. The root of the problem is, rather, that the intellectual structure of standing law is ill-matched to the task it is asked to perform. In this article I pro- pose a new structure, one that can serve as a paradigm not only in the scientific sense of explaining observed phenomena, 5 but also in the sense t Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley. A.B., Harvard University, 1968; B.A., Oxford University, 1970; J.D., Yale University, 1975. I wish to thank my colleagues and friends Stephen Bundy, Jesse Choper, Kevin James, Stephan Kuttner, Kirk McInnis, Robert Post, Edward Rubin, Joseph Sax, and Kim Scheppele, my father Robert Fletcher, and my wife Linda Fletcher, for their valuable criticism and suggestions. I particu- larly wish to thank Akhil Amar and Daniel Meltzer for their contributions. Finally, I wish to thank Adam Belsky and Pamela Johnston for their excellent research assistance. 1. 4 K. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 24:35, at 342 (2d ed. 1983). 2. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.
    [Show full text]