Sad Time: Thoughts on Jurisdictionality, the Legal Imagination, and Bowles v. Russell

Perry Dane, Sad Time: Thoughts on Jurisdictionality, the Legal Imagination, and Bowles v. Russell, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 164 (2008)

More on Bowles, and more that's not relevant to me.

The Failure of Bowles v. Russell

Scott Dodson, The Failure of Bowles v. Russell

(I think I got this from SSRN.)

Dodson wants to chart the middle course in Bowles: mandatory, but not jurisdictional. This is even further from my topic than some of the other articles in this line.

Jurisdiction, Merits, and Procedure: Thoughts on Dodson's Trichotomy

Howard M. Wasserman, Jurisdiction, Merits, and Procedure: Thoughts on Dodson's Trichotomy, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 215 (2008)

Not apparently useful -- talks about the three titular objects each in comparison with the other, but nothing really applicable to me.

Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional and Why Does it Matter?

Karl S. Coplan, Is Citizen Suit Notice Jurisdictional and Why Does it Matter?, 10 Widener L. Rev. 49 (2003)

Not useful -- very specific question, narrow answer, non-constitutional, etc.

Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell

Scott Dodson, Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell, 102 Nw. U. L. Colloqy 42 (2007)

Just basically a note on Bowles v. Russell, which holds that time limits are jurisdictional. It's a preposterous decision, 5-4, conservatives over liberals, but it utterly ignores Arbaugh.

That said, this article isn't really relevant to me now. The case might be as an example of how even Arbaugh, with its categorical rule, hasn't actually settled these questions, that there might be more room for debate on these issues.

All About Words: Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806

William N. Eskridge, Jr., All About Words: Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 990 (2001)

Another shot across the bow in the texualism, originalism, living constitution debates. "Judicial power" is asked about to question whether judges have the power to read statutes in particular ways. I didn't get past the introduction, since it's a long piece, and it's not clear how helpful it'll actually be.

"Arising Under" Jurisdiction in the Federalism Renaissance: Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland

Michelle Reed, Note, "Arising Under" Jurisdiction in the Federalism Renaissance: Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 2002 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 717 (2002)

Completely irrelevant to what I'm doing. But here's a good line: "The federal circuits are deeply splintered on nearly all issues." I'll say!

The Federal Courts in the Political Order

Martin Redish, The Federal Courts in the Political Order: Judicial Jurisdiction and American Political Theory

Argument is mainly centered around illegitimate judicial lawmaking with regard to jurisdiction, e.g. abstention, federal common law, etc. That's kind of orthogonal to my issue, of illegitimate grants / exercises of federal judicial power.

Jurisdiction, Merits, and Substantiality

Howard M. Wasserman, Jurisdiction, Merits, and Substantiality, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 579 (2007)

To the extent it's useful to me, it's duplicative of what's in Wasserman's other paper.

City of Boerne

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

Congress can't define the meaning of the Constitution or expand its other powers using Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. This probably isn't relevant.

J.I. Case v. Borak

J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964)

Federal courts have the power to grant remedial relief where they have jurisdiction -- it's not clear that this is relevant to me.