Issue 1

The Federal Common Law Origins of Judicial Jurisdiction: Implications for Modern Doctrine

The Supreme Court’s attempt in Pennoyer v. Neff to graft federal common law jurisdictional rules onto the Due Process Clause has proven problematic. Although the jurisdictional rules have changed significantly since that decision, contemporary federal limitations on state court jurisdiction continue to reflect their common law origins. Oblivious to the origins of such jurisdictional rules, the Supreme Court has struggled in recent years to explain them in due process terms, unable to construct a due process model that can adequately explain the elements of interstate federalism in current jurisdictional doctrine. Nor will the Court ever be able to fully explain in due process terms rules formulated primarily to vindicate structural values rather than individual rights.

Several commentators have suggested that the Court resolve this dissonance by taking seriously due process as the sole source of authority for the jurisdictional rules and jettisoning all elements that do not fit within the due process model. Such a solution would, however, unnecessarily deny the Court the flexibility to formulate optimal jurisdictional rules. This Article argues that the better course would be to recognize constitutional structure as the primary source of authority for federal common law restrictions on state court jurisdiction, with due process imposing only “modest” restrictions akin to the constitutional restrictions on state choice of law authority. Either of these alternatives is far superior to current doctrine, which erroneously assigns interstate federalism content to a due process source of authority. This mismatch is primarily responsible for the incoherence that plagues personal jurisdiction doctrine. More significantly, because the core restrictions on state court jurisdiction are mistakenly thought to be mandated by a constitutional provision protecting individual liberty interests, current doctrine illegitimately prevents Congress from remedying serious deficiencies in our interstate system of justice, such as the difficulty in obtaining and enforcing child-support judgments.

How to Construe a Hybrid Statute

This Note addresses the interpretation of statutes creating civil and criminal liability with identical or nearly-identical language. It illustrates how, if conventional interpretive rules are applied, these “hybrid” statutes can receive a (problematic) path-dependent interpretation: the statute’s meaning will depend on whether an ambiguity first comes to light in a civil or criminal case. However, the most obvious solutions to this problem – applying lenity in all civil cases arising under hybrid statutes and dual construction of identical language – are unsatisfactory. Dual construction is seldom if ever appropriate, because of the descriptive force and normative attractiveness of the consistent usage canons. Moreover, an unthinking application of lenity in all civil cases would seriously impair the operation of many important statutes, and probably frustrate legislative expectations. Instead, this Note argues that language common to the civil and criminal portions of hybrid statutes should, presumptively, be construed both consistently and evenhandedly. In other words, glosses rendered civilly should apply criminally and vice-versa, and the mere existence of a certain level of ambiguity should not presumptively resolve the interpretive question either way.

Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional

Summary judgment is cited as a significant reason for the dramatic decline in the number of jury trials in civil cases in federal court. Judges extensively use the device to clear the federal docket of cases deemed meritless. Recent scholarship even has called for the mandatory use of summary judgment prior to settlement. While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court settled the issue a century ago in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States. But a review of that case reveals that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the constitutionality of summary judgment has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. This Essay is the first to examine the question and takes the seemingly heretical position that summary judgment is unconstitutional. The question is governed by the Seventh Amendment which provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The Supreme Court has held that “common law” in the Seventh Amendment refers to the English common law in 1791. This Essay demonstrates that no procedure similar to summary judgment existed under the English common law and also reveals that summary judgment violates the core principles, or “substance,” of the English common law. The Essay concludes that, despite the uniform acceptance of the device, summary judgment is unconstitutional. The Essay then responds to likely objections, including that the federal courts cannot function properly without summary judgment. By describing the burden that the procedure of summary judgment imposes upon litigants and the courts, the Essay argues that summary judgment is not necessary to the judicial system but rather, by contrast, imposes significant costs upon the system.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.