Civil Procedure

Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.

This Article examines over 500 nationwide-injunction cases and shows that a surprising participant is influencing the result: an outsider who has joined as an intervenor. Judicial discretion over intervention functionally gives courts control over how nationwide-injunction cases proceed, or whether they proceed at all. With few principles guiding that discretion, procedural rulings can appear to be influenced by the court’s own political leanings, undermining public confidence in the court’s decision on the merits. This Article represents the first scholarly examination of the significant role that intervention plays in nationwide-injunction suits. More broadly, this Article uses intervention to explore the function of procedural rules and the federal courts in a democratic system. Finally, this Article offers two reforms that would promote procedural values and cabin the role of the federal courts in ideological litigation.

This Essay proposes using the dilemma defendants face in parallel proceedings as a way to measure the Value of Statistical Freedom (VSF). The VSF (sometimes called the Value of Liberty) can be thought of as an individual’s willingness to pay to not be in prison. The VSF is spiritually similar to the far more prevalent “Value of Statistical Life” (VSL), which measures the willingness to trade money or wealth in exchange for an increase in the mortality probability.

This Comment explores the history of Rule 12(d), describes courts’ varying uses of the exception, and proposes a unifying method of interpretation for the future. Drawing on other procedural rules and an analogous doctrine in contract law, it argues that only unmistakably referenced written instruments may be incorporated.

Civil procedure serves a multitude of goals, from regulating the cost of fact gathering to dictating the rules of advocacy in court to promoting public participation in trials. To what extent can procedural design serve them all, or must rules sacrifice some interests to serve others? In this Article, we are the first to introduce a theory of procedural design that answers this question.

The Pueblo of Pojoaque is a Native American tribe in northern New Mexico. Its reservation has a population of 2,712, and, like many tribes, the Pueblo of Pojoaque operates multiple casinos and resorts.

Class actions, brought on an opt-out basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and state analogues, are highly controversial.

Across the country, federal courts now routinely have a hand in the resolution of foreign civil disputes. They do so by compelling discovery in the United States—typically as much discovery as would be available for a lawsuit adjudicated in federal district court—and making it available for use in foreign civil proceedings governed by different procedural rules.

By 1976, Congress recognized that foreign states and their business enterprises were common participants in the global economy, often transacting with US citizens. It further recognized that there were no uniform or comprehensive rules governing when and how private parties could bring suit against those foreign governments in the courts of the United States.