Author Archives: Joel Nolette

Is the “Auer” at Hand to Reconsider Seminole Rock Deference?

Regular readers may recall an essay I posted a few months back, which I wrote for the Pacific Legal Foundation’s law student writing competition. In that essay, I discussed the administrative law doctrine known as Auer (or Seminole Rock) deference, and I highlighted recent calls for reconsidering or abrogating the doctrine. As I stated there: […]

The Weekly Bipartisan: Reforming Qualified Immunity

[Welcome to The Weekly Bipartisan, where we share instances of meaningful bipartisanship, on the Hill and elsewhere. This project seeks to shine a light on efforts to come together to find common ground and advance shared values in a political climate defined by polarization, an increasingly jaded citizenry, and vilification instead of constructive dialogue and debate. […]

“[T]he Worst Kind of Justice” – Justice Gorsuch, Slatesplained

Yesterday marked the end of the Court’s October Term 2016, meaning the last few cases yet to be decided were announced and various pending matters were otherwise disposed of (deets on that can be found here and other forthcoming summaries). It was a pretty typical end-of-term day, what with big cases granted cert for argument next term, an interesting constitutional decision announced, and the commentariat atwitter just trying to keep up.

Ad Fontes: “Last Game of the Year, Brent, Can’t Hold Anything Back Now,” Part II–Per Curiams

[Ad Fontes was an early Renaissance and Reformation credo. Literally meaning “to the fountains,” the phrase embodied these movements’ emphasis on studying the original, primary sources in religious, philosophical, and scientific pursuits. This same commitment animates our efforts to follow our state and federal judiciaries’ decisionmaking in key cases being decided therein, given how these […]

Ad Fontes: “Last Game of the Year, Brent, Can’t Hold Anything Back Now,” Part I–Orders

[Ad Fontes was an early Renaissance and Reformation credo. Literally meaning “to the fountains,” the phrase embodied these movements’ emphasis on studying the original, primary sources in religious, philosophical, and scientific pursuits. This same commitment animates our efforts to follow our state and federal judiciaries’ decisionmaking in key cases being decided therein, given how these […]

First Impressions: Standing on Solid Ground in Town of Chester

The Court just unanimously decided Town of Chester, NY v. Laroe Estates, Inc., holding that an intervenor as of right under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must nevertheless establish Article III standing if that intervenor seeks relief distinct from the relief that the existing plaintiff is seeking. The Court did not […]

The Weekly Bipartisan: Ending Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Weekly Bipartisan shares instances of meaningful bipartisanship, on the Hill and elsewhere. This project seeks to shine a light on efforts to come together to find common ground and advance shared values in a political climate defined by polarization, an increasingly jaded citizenry, and vilification instead of constructive dialogue and debate.

Paristeria

That we live in an age of political hyperbole has been demonstrated too many times so as to be self-evident at this point. And this week is just another case-in-point. Yesterday, President Trump announced his decision to withdraw the United States from the non-binding, unenforceable (and probably illegal) Paris Climate Agreement. Based upon reactions from […]

A Railroad Company Gets Sued. You Won’t Believe What Happens Next!

The Supreme Court issued its decision this morning in BNSF v. Tyrrell, an interesting case raising the question, how much activity must a corporation engage in within a state before that corporation may be subject to general personal jurisdiction in the courts of that state, when that state is neither a corporation’s state of incorporation nor […]

“I Was So Much Older Then, I’m Younger Than That Now”

“Law is but the means, justice is the end.”[i] This is Georgetown Law’s motto. Consider also, however, this statement from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I hate justice . . . I know if a man begins to talk about that, for one reason or another he is shirking thinking in legal terms.”[ii] I’d like to […]