Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Lauren's Post
Lauren had formatting issues, so she ended up posting her commentary on a recent case as a comment to my "Welcome to the Class Blog" post. Unfortunately, her hyperlinks do not display in her comment, so I recommend you read the post on the link she provided to Google Docs and then reply to her comment.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
Introduction
Is it fair to have two different standards for determining
diversity jurisdiction: one for individuals and another for corporations? Does
this distinction perpetuate corporate power and weaken the people? If
corporations are considered “people” when seeking protections under the First
Amendment, why are they not considered “people” when determining where a
lawsuit is allowed to be filed and disputed?
diversity jurisdiction: one for individuals and another for corporations? Does
this distinction perpetuate corporate power and weaken the people? If
corporations are considered “people” when seeking protections under the First
Amendment, why are they not considered “people” when determining where a
lawsuit is allowed to be filed and disputed?
A Corporation Over Here, A Person Over There
Diversity jurisdiction permits civil cases to be heard in
federal court, as opposed to state court, even if they address state law[1].
If there is not complete diversity, then the case must go through the state judicial
system. There is no diversity if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of
the same state.
federal court, as opposed to state court, even if they address state law[1].
If there is not complete diversity, then the case must go through the state judicial
system. There is no diversity if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of
the same state.
The citizenship of a corporation can be determined by the
state where it has its principal business dealings (“nerve center”) or
the state where it is incorporated[2].
The citizenship of an individual is determined by an individual’s single place
of permanent residence.
state where it has its principal business dealings (“nerve center”) or
the state where it is incorporated[2].
The citizenship of an individual is determined by an individual’s single place
of permanent residence.
In the Citizens United
v. FEC case, it was determined that the First Amendment protects a corporation’s
right to political speech. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the
requirement of a business to provide health insurance covering specific forms
of contraceptives violated the First Amendment rights of business owners in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby when the plaintiffs indicated it was against their
religious beliefs.
v. FEC case, it was determined that the First Amendment protects a corporation’s
right to political speech. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the
requirement of a business to provide health insurance covering specific forms
of contraceptives violated the First Amendment rights of business owners in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby when the plaintiffs indicated it was against their
religious beliefs.
What’s the big deal?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed, on at least two occasions,
that corporations are, in fact, people. However, diversity jurisdiction clearly
delineates between individuals and corporations when determining which system a
case can be heard. Corporations
may prefer a "fairer" federal court for their cases to “limit their
losses” and cases
may be more likely to be dismissed. Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, the case from which the corporate citizenship test was
conceived, exemplifies a corporation’s preference to be heard in federal,
versus state, court.
that corporations are, in fact, people. However, diversity jurisdiction clearly
delineates between individuals and corporations when determining which system a
case can be heard. Corporations
may prefer a "fairer" federal court for their cases to “limit their
losses” and cases
may be more likely to be dismissed. Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, the case from which the corporate citizenship test was
conceived, exemplifies a corporation’s preference to be heard in federal,
versus state, court.
It could be argued that the system seems to support what is
most advantageous for corporations rather than individuals.
most advantageous for corporations rather than individuals.
Conclusion
Corporations and individuals alike are provided the benefit
of free political speech and religious protection. However, if corporations are
defendants in civil cases, it seems their path to a federal court is made
easier by the citizenship test, perhaps placing plaintiffs in a weaker
position.
of free political speech and religious protection. However, if corporations are
defendants in civil cases, it seems their path to a federal court is made
easier by the citizenship test, perhaps placing plaintiffs in a weaker
position.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Welcome to the Class Blog
This blog is an integral component of our Lawsuits and Litigation MLS course. The purpose of the blog is to (a) promote out of class
discussion on topics related to the course and (b) raise litigation questions
or legal issues that are of interest to you, so they may be discussed in class.
The blog is public, although one must be a member of the blog to post a comment. Consequently, the blog is displayed on search results and members of the general public may view posts. If there are potential sensitivities to making public statements that relate to your current employment you should use an opaque user name.
The blog is public, although one must be a member of the blog to post a comment. Consequently, the blog is displayed on search results and members of the general public may view posts. If there are potential sensitivities to making public statements that relate to your current employment you should use an opaque user name.
Required posts:
- Each student shall make one substantive post during a week when the class does not meet that relates to (a) any of the readings, assignments, procedural rules or topics identified on the syllabus for the preceding week or (b) any lawsuit that is currently pending in any federal or state court in the United States. You will sign up for a posting date on the first day of class, which date will be on a Wednesday of the week where no class is held. The post is due at 9:00 am and should be 300-400 words in length and contain appropriate source citations or hyperlinks regarding the subject of the post. The post may offer a commentary on a particular litigation issue or case or simply raise an issue or question with the week’s readings. The post should be polished, well organized, thoughtful and analytical; not simply a stream of consciousness or opinion. The blog post author should be prepared to respond in class to questions from me about their post.
- Each student shall post a comment on every classmate’s substantive blog post, which comment is due on or before 5:00 pm. on the same day as the blog post. There is no minimum/maximum word count on comments and comments may be on the initial post or a reply to another comment. The purpose of the comments is to generate an intelligent and civil discourse on the blog postings. A robust, but civil, back and forth between author and commenter is encouraged. Students may be randomly called upon by me to expand upon or defend their comments in class.
We are going to have a great semester!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)