The Demise of “Drive-by Jurisdictional Rulings”

Howard M. Wasserman[*]

[download pdf]

In an October 2009 Term marked by several significant constitutional rulings,[1] the Supreme Court quietly continued an important multi-term effort towards defining which legal rules properly should be called "jurisdictional."  In each of four cases that considered the issue, the Court unanimously rejected a jurisdictional characterization of the challenged legal rule.[2]  These cases continue an almost uninterrupted retreat from the Court's admittedly "profligate" and "less than meticulous" use of the term.[3]  The Court now rejects "drive-by jurisdictional rulings," in which a legal rule has been labeled as jurisdictional only through "unrefined" analysis, without rigorous consideration of the label's meaning or consequence.[4]

Salazar v. Buono Symposium Podcasts

The following podcasts come from a four-part symposium held on October 15, 2010 at the John Marshall Law School.  Several professors met to discuss their articles featured in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy on the recent Supreme Court first amendment case, Salazar v. Buono.  All of these podcasts can be accessed below, or downloaded via iTunes or Windows Media by clicking here.

In the first podcast, Professor Lisa Shaw Roy explains why the Salazar case did not reach the truly interesting issue of whether the cross violated the Establishment Clause, but instead settled on procedural grounds.  To read Professor Roy’s original Colloquy article, click here.

 

In the second podcast, Professor Mary Jean Dolan analyzes the new “reasonable observer” portion of the (arguably) expanded endorsement test.  To read Professor Dolan’s original Colloquy article, click here.

 

In the third podcast, Professor Ian Bartrum discusses how the victory for religious groups may not really be a victory, since the endorsement test now looks to the secularization of religious symbols. To read Professor Bartrum’s original Colloquy article, click here.

 

In the final podcast, Professor Christopher Lund discusses how the government is forced in cases such as this to define religious symbols (like the cross), and thus threaten to expropriate the meaning of these symbols. To read Professor Lund’s original Colloquy article, click here.

 

The Crime Victim’s Expanding Role in a System of Public Prosecution: A Response to the Critics of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act

Paul G. Cassell[*] & Steven Joffee[**]

[download pdf]

Introduction

The American criminal justice system is often envisioned as one in which public prosecutors pursue public prosecutions on behalf of the public—leaving no room for crime victims’ involvement.  However, state and federal statutes and state constitutional amendments have challenged this vision.  Perhaps the best example of such a challenge comes from the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), a federal statute passed by Congress in 2004 that guarantees victims a series of rights in federal criminal proceedings.[1]