Notes

In this Note, Robert Alexander Schwartz assesses the state of the debate in the latest chapter of the ever-unfolding law of arbitration. What works for high-value agreements between sophisticated parties in arms-length negotiation may not work for contracts of adhesion between businesses and consumers. Focusing on disputes arising under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Schwartz analyzes recent case law upholding arbitration agreements contained in consumer-lending contracts of adhesion, as well as recent scholarship criticizing the courts’ actions. He concludes that both the courts and the scholars have it wrong: Neither arbitration as presently constituted nor class action lawsuits can provide individual justice to TILA plaintiffs. Schwartz suggests an alternative legal framework for attacking unfair arbitration clauses while offering a set of modernizing improvements that might make arbitration a viable tool for the resolution of TILA claims and other consumer agreement disputes.

On three occasions, administrative agencies complied with orders of new Presidents to delay the effective dates of “midnight regulations” promulgated in the final days of the outgoing administration. Although rulemaking pursuant to presidential directives is increasingly common, the agencies’ exclusive reliance on presidential authority in these instances is unusual; the delays thus presented a rare opportunity for judicial review of presidential rulemaking. In this Note, B.J. Sanford argues that the delays were illegal. First, they cannot withstand the traditional “hard look” review of administrative action because they do not contain adequate justifications grounded in the authorizing statute. More importantly, by relying on presidential decree rather than statutory authority, the agencies crossed the thin formal line be- tween legally bounded administrative rulemaking and straightforward legislation, producing a constitutionally unacceptable concentration of arbitrary power. Although the immediate impact of this violation may be small, the consequences of repeated acquiescence to it may be much greater, as even small formal deviations, if not consistently challenged, can threaten the system of dispersed power contemplated by the Constitution.

In response to September 11, 2001, Congress established a victim compensation fund, charging the Department of Justice with the responsibility for creating and administering the fund regulations. Several months after the Department of Justice announced its final rules, Cantor Fitzgerald publicly alleged that a number of the regulations were contrary to the congressional act governing the fund. Jonathan Melber examines Cantor Fitzgerald’s arguments and shows that they do not hold up under current principles of administrative law because the challenged regulations fall within the range of discretion Congress delegated to the Department of Justice.

Personal jurisdiction proceedings formally focus on the defendant’s liberty interest in avoiding the reach of an overextending court. In this Note, R. D. Rees argues that such an approach may fail to provide the plaintiff due process. The laws of various jurisdictions convert a single set of underlying facts into distinct causes of action, and the Supreme Court understands these statutory programs to create property interests. Although a plaintiff may not have a substantive right to a cause of action in a given jurisdiction, she does have the procedural right to have her interests considered before dismissal for lack of jurisdiction finally destroys her property claim. Since the defendant-centered nature of the “minimum contacts” test does not appear to allow for such consideration, Rees proposes a modest adjustment to the current test that would weigh plaintiff interests among the totality of the circumstances.

A Business Improvement District, or BID, is a territorial subdivision within a municipality. Within a BID, local property and business owners pay district-specific assessments to fund local improvements such as enhanced security, sanitation, marketing, and infrastructure. Because BIDs are often managed by private entities controlled principally by local property or business owners, critics have charged that BIDs are undemocratic and insufficiently accountable. In this Note, Brian Hochleutner argues that BIDs are both democratic and accountable, at least to the BID’s most likely stakeholders and to the extent that those stakeholders are likely to be affected by the BID’s activities. As Hochleutner demonstrates, a BID’s small size and limited purpose work to limit accountability concerns generally. Further, a BID’s size and purpose also work with other aspects of the BID model—such as substantial oversight by local government officials and the BID’s own corporate governance mechanisms—to ensure that BIDs are not only particularly responsive to the interests of local property and business owners, but also sufficiently accountable to the interests of local residents. Hochleutner concludes that the BID model provides a way of governing sublocal commercial districts and downtown areas that is more fair and accountable to those actually governed than any obvious alternative.

Only one rule of criminal procedure applies to the trial of alleged petty offenders in federal court. This rule establishes a baseline for the trial of petty offenders. However, district courts implement that baseline in many diverse ways. The procedures vary dramatically, and there is little or no information available to defendants in order to prepare them for court. Court-appointed counsel is provided in very few cases. In this Note, Mary Warner examines the systemic problems with the current procedures governing the trial of alleged petty offenders. With the limited information available on how petty offenses are tried in various districts, she first surveys district court procedures. Based on the application of procedural rules in the various district courts, she then analyzes how current practices fall short of constitutional norms and efficient best practices.

Currently there is no broadly applicable international legal instrument that protects ongoing contact between noncustodial parents and their children across national borders. Although the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides strong protection for rights of custody, it grants relatively weak protection for rights of contact. This absence of protection for rights of contact both undermines the goal of preventing abduction and leaves unresolved the question of how to ensure the continuity of relationships between noncustodial parents and their children. In particular, parents and courts involved in relocation cases have no assurance that orders for visitation and other forms of parent-child contact will be fully recognized and enforced once the residence parent and child have relocated. In this Note, Marguerite C. Walter argues that a protocol providing for the recognition and enforcement of contact decisions by states adhering to the Abduction Convention would provide a relatively simple and immediate solution to the problem. Such a protocol would provide for the automatic recognition and enforcement of contact decisions when certain criteria are met. The most important of those criteria would be that the order emanate from the authorities of the child’s habitual residence no earlier than six months to one year prior to the recognition request, and that all parties have been given the opportunity to be heard in the original proceeding. In addition, the protocol should provide for interjudicial communication, a strictly construed emergency exception to mandatory recognition and enforcement, and specific sanctions for failure to recognize and enforce a contact decision meeting the criteria set forth.

To date, no international criminal tribunal has seriously considered using a jury trial. In the International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, a panel of judges appointed by the Assembly of States Parties acts as the fact finder. In this Note, Amy Powell examines the theoretical justifications for a jury in the context of international criminal adjudication. She concludes that the use of a jury–or, at a minimum, the integration of the important values underpinning the institution of the jury–would greatly benefit the ICC by protecting important principles of justice.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the nation’s seminal environmental-protection legislation, has affected tremendously the course of executive-agency decisionmaking. Its broad, ambiguous mandate that agencies consider the potential environmental impact of agency decisions has been interpreted aggressively to require thorough analysis of environmental factors and also that those considerations guide the ultimate conclusions of the decisionmaking process. The demanding analytic requirements, such as the environmental impact statement and the environmental assessment, are recognized to be a significant burden on the resources of executive agencies. Consequently, the agency charged with administrating NEPA has urged executive agencies to promulgate categorical exclusions–categories of actions that are exempted from traditional NEPA analysis due to their repetitive nature and the predictability of their limited environmental impact. This NEPA exception has steadily broadened and invited agency abuse to avoid the burdens of NEPA requirements and the scrutiny of environmental advocacy groups. The resulting litigation brought by advocacy groups to hold these agencies accountable has been expensive and time-consuming. In this Note, Kevin Moriarty explores the history of categorical exclusions and discusses past efforts to remedy potential abuses of agency discretion. The most recent incarnation of categorical exclusions includes a set of burdensome analytic requirements designed to counteract potential abuses that could result from the increased discretion provided in modern categorical-exclusions regulations. In this Note, Moriarty argues that if categorical exclusions were limited to their original form, fewer actions would be excluded, but the actions actually excluded would be protected from challenges through litigation. This Note concludes that the resulting loss of agency discretion through use of broad categorical exclusions would likely increase overall efficiency in agency decisionmaking.

In response to a perceived increase in the incidence of predatory lending, several states have recently enacted laws designed to protect vulnerable borrowers from abusive lenders. Earlier this year, however, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) determined that the new laws conflicted with the National Bank Act and issued a regulation preempting them. This Note argues that the OCC overstepped its congressionally delegated authority when it promulgated the regulation, and that courts should consequently invalidate it in order to allow states to continue to develop novel legislative responses to the growing problem of abusive lending. The Note proceeds in two stages. First, after canvassing the unsettled case law on the issue, it argues that courts should not categorically defer to agency decisions to preempt state laws. Because of the relative ease with which administrative agencies can preempt state laws and the real threat that preemption orders pose to state legislative independence, the judiciary should scrutinize agency preemption decisions to ensure that they are at the very least reasonable. Second, the Note turns to the substance of the OCC order, contending that it reflects an unwarranted, unnecessary, and unwise effort to meddle in states’ purely internal affairs. Because the predatory lending laws only minimally affect national bank lending powers, do not impose costs on the national banking system, and do not generate spillover effects, they do not interfere with national banks in a way that can justify the OCC’s wholesale preemption.