Extra Venues for Extraterritorial Crimes? 18 USC § 3238 and Cross-Border Criminal Activity
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Extra Venues for Extraterritorial Crimes? 18 USC § 3238 and Cross-Border Criminal Activity on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Extra Venues for Extraterritorial Crimes? 18 USC § 3238 and Cross-Border Criminal Activity on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Extra Venues for Extraterritorial Crimes? 18 USC § 3238 and Cross-Border Criminal Activity on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Extra Venues for Extraterritorial Crimes? 18 USC § 3238 and Cross-Border Criminal Activity on LinkedIn
The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.
How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.
He thanks Malcolm Yeary, Maggie Wells, Savannah Kostrzewa, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.
The Florida defendant files a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)—asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant it? More specifically, does having an anonymous John Doe as a defendant categorically preclude diversity jurisdiction?
She thanks Michael T. Brody for his expertise and insight, as well as Matthew Makowski, Renic Sloan, Virginia Robinson, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.
In April of 2022, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down the latest decision in its “packaged tuna antitrust saga,” with implications that have the potential to usher in a sea change to class action practice.