ARTICLE III
Law Journals and Reviews
The Constitutional Structure of the Courts of the United States Territories: The Case of American Samoa. 13 UH L. Rev. 379.
Judicial Review and Sexual Freedom. 30 UH L. Rev. 1.
Case Notes
Where state plaintiffs, including Hawaii, claimed that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act injured them by requiring them to pay a share of the costs of serving new enrollees in state-operated or state-sponsored insurance programs such as medicaid, the state plaintiffs failed to establish standing under this Article because they did not show how this injury was directly traceable to any actual or possible unlawful government conduct in enforcing the minimum essential coverage provision of the Act. 593 U.S. 659 (2021).
Not violated by magistrate's review of motion to dismiss, where district court exercised own judgment. 764 F.2d 690.
Plaintiff lacked standing under Article III to maintain action regarding U.S. Army's decision to award computer service contract, because plaintiff conceded that plaintiff had no substantial chance of receiving the award. 113 F.3d 1129.
All parties' motions for summary judgment with respect to L 2009, Act 189, regarding leases of commercial and industrial property, denied; the court does not presently adopt the parties' assumption that, for standing purposes, a dollar loss is the only possible injury. 676 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (2009).
In an action involving the purchase of an allegedly unsuitable insurance product with an excessive death benefit and premium costs for a trust, defendant, a life insurer, contended that plaintiff, who was neither the policy's owner nor its beneficiary, had not suffered an injury in fact and lacked prudential standing. However, plaintiff satisfied the Article III injury in fact requirement by alleging injury in the form of payment of $37,000 in order to secure a loan pursuant to the premium financing arranged by defendant, and plaintiff established prudential standing by asserting plaintiff's own legal rights rather than those of the trust. Also, plaintiff's complaints fell within the scope of the state's unfair and deceptive acts or practices law and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. 382 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (2019).
Where plaintiffs, owners of a condominium apartment, were foreclosed upon by their condominium association pursuant to the nonjudicial foreclosure procedure in chapter 667 in effect at that time, plaintiffs argued that Act 282, Session Laws of Hawaii 2019, which amended portions of chapter 667, violated the separation of powers doctrine. District court found that Act 282 included the unusual feature of retroactive application of amendments essentially to revive a statutory scheme repealed seven years before Act 282 was enacted; and predicted that the state supreme court would hold that the legislature's attempt in Act 282 to circumvent judicial decisions that were not yet final judgments in wrongful foreclosure litigation challenging foreclosures conducted pursuant to chapter 667 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine and, thus, was not constitutionally barred. 453 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (2020).
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Law Journals and Reviews
The Price of Precedent: Anastasoff v. United States. 23 UH L. Rev. 795.
From Anti-Injunction to Radical Reform: Proposing a Unifying Approach to Class-Action Adjudication. 31 UH L. Rev. 155.
Setting Aside Transfers of Property in Foreign Countries: How Long Is the Reach of the United States Bankruptcy Court? 32 UH L. Rev. 53 (2009).
Case Notes
Recess appointee to federal bench cannot exercise judicial power of United States. 726 F.2d 1328.
Not violated by magistrate-conducted voir dire in criminal case without defendant's consent. 760 F.2d 999.
Rule that jury selection by magistrate without defendant's consent violates Federal Magistrate Act did not apply retroactively to final conviction challenged on collateral review. 944 F.2d 523.
Defendant has constitutional right to have all stages of a criminal trial conducted by a person with jurisdiction to preside. 42 F.3d 473.
Congress need not make an Article 3 court available for adjudication of disputes arising out of events occurring within a United States territory. 550 F. Supp. 1227.
U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual was not rendered unconstitutional by Title IV of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), Pub. L. No. 108-21. 302 F. Supp. 2d 1170.