Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogLittle on Choice of Law & Federal Jurisdiction
By Lawrence Solum
Laura E. Little (Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law) has posted Empowerment Through Restraint: Reverse Preemption or Hybrid Lawmaking? (Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 59, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In the jurisprudence of federal jurisdiction, we often observe federal courts exerting power and control under the banner of restraint and deference to states and to other branches of the federal government. This article explores two examples of this empowerment technique, in which the United States Supreme Court deployed federal judicial power to resolve choice of law questions. The examples come from diverse contexts, unlikely bedfellows for analysis: foreign affairs and bankruptcy. In both contexts, the Roberts Court acted in the name of respect for state prerogatives, but bestowed on itself and other federal judges considerable latitude to determine the outcome of suits.
The foreign affairs illustration of this "negative" empowerment technique is the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Medellin v. Texas.. Framed as a choice of law case, Medellin presented the choice between state procedural default rules and treaty provisions interpreted by the International Court of Justice. The bankruptcy illustration derives from a line of cases beginning with Butner v. United States and analyzing the choice between state law and federal bankruptcy law. In both illustrations, the Supreme Court named state law as "the winner."
Beyond showing how the Supreme Court's choice of law analysis empowers the federal judiciary, this article also explores how the Medellin and bankruptcy cases add to a growing body of hybrid law. Working within the confines of federal principles, the Court allowed other sovereignties (states) to provide meaningful contributions to federal regulation and thereby successfully navigated a permeable line between state and federal law. This bodes well for the future of hybrid lawmaking in general. Might the Court's approach also provide an upbeat message for debates about whether United States courts should integrate international and transnational principles in their decisionmaking?
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on February 10, 2009 (boomark / email).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
Westinghouse
alleging that former Westinghouse employees are being deprived of a choice in health care prescription plan benefits that were formerly available to them through union bargaining.
Taylor Bean Faces Federal WARN Class Action
Taylor Bean Federal Employment Class Action Filed
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
Arrow Trucking Hit with Federal Lawsuit by Employees
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
California Talent Agency, Be Productions, Faces Federal Class Action
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Parents Bring Federal Lawsuit After Tainted Baby Formula Injures Newborn
Federal Government
alleging discrimination against black farmers

PROTECTING ONES ASSETS IN A TAX FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT
Federal Jurisdiction in light of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
Federal Question Jurisdiction and the Federal Arbitration Act
Publication: Briggs on Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
Colloquium on the Choice of Courts Convention
Federal Question Jurisdiction in Legal Malpractice








