Solving Jurisdiction\u27s Social Cost

Federal court subject-matter jurisdiction rules incur a significant social cost—when jurisdiction is found lacking, courts must dismiss, no matter how many years and resources the parties have spent on the case. Indeed, hundreds of belated jurisdictional dismissals occur each year after parties have already engaged in discovery, dispositive motions, or even trial. Federal judges tolerate this waste largely because they view nonwaivable jurisdictional rules as a function of structural values rooted in the Constitution, rather than efficiency concerns. In contrast, scholars tend to focus primarily on efficiency arguments while discussing jurisdictional nonwaivability, de-emphasizing important structural interests. Both theories are overly monistic and fail to consider the full range of jurisdictional values. This Article advances two claims. First, jurisdictional values are pluralistic and multipolar, implicating structural and efficiency interests that are fundamentally incommensurable. We should not simply attempt to maximize a single set of jurisdictional values. And because there is no single unit of measurement for weighing structural values such as “separation of powers” against efficiency interests such as “litigation waste,” we should resist forcing these interests through a cost-benefit analysis. Instead, courts and rule makers should seek equilibrium among all relevant values when fashioning jurisdictional rules. Second, using this equilibration approach, the Article proposes a solution to jurisdiction’s social cost: Courts should resolve all subject-matter jurisdiction questions at the outset of litigation. Federal district courts should affirmatively certify the existence of jurisdiction in every case; after that point, objections to statutory federal jurisdiction would be waived. Moreover, to accommodate both structural and efficiency interests, appellate courts should have discretion to immediately review jurisdictional orders when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Lastly, federal courts should use the threat of sanctions to deter private-party abuse of jurisdictional rules. See also the response by Daniel Klerman, https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlro/vol89/iss1/1/ \u3eAn Economic Analysis of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Waiver and Dustin Buehler\u27s rejoinder, https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlro/vol90/iss1/1/ \u3eRevisiting Solving Jurisdiction\u27s Social Cost

Revisiting \u3ci\u3eSolving Jurisdiction\u27s Social Cost\u3c/i\u3e: A Brief Rejoinder to Professor Klerman

My recent article https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss3/2/ \u3eSolving Jurisdiction’s Social Cost examines issues implicated by nonwaivable federal court subject-matter jurisdiction. I argue that courts and commentators are prone to monistic theories of jurisdictional value, failing to consider the full range of interests implicated by jurisdictional rules. I then catalogue the various interests arising from jurisdictional rules. Lastly, I advance several solutions, including early jurisdictional certification orders, a cut-off point for jurisdictional challenges, interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional rulings, and sanctions to deter private-party abuse. Daniel Klerman’s response to my article is articulate, well-reasoned, and persuasive. Among other contentions, he suggests that mandatory jurisdictional certification by district courts may incur greater costs than those associated with nonwaivable jurisdictional rules. Professor Klerman challenges the notion that the efficiency and structural interests underlying jurisdictional rules are incommensurable. And he outlines a novel alternative approach in which federal courts could call for the views of state attorneys general when appropriate to identify and protect federalism concerns and state prerogatives

Eggshell Economics: A Revolutionary Approach to the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule

For more than a century, courts have universally applied the eggshell plaintiff rule, which holds tortfeasors liable for the full extent of the harm inflicted on vulnerable “eggshell” victims. Liability attaches even when the victim’s condition and the scope of her injuries were completely unforeseeable ex ante. This Article explores the implications of this rule by providing a pioneering economic analysis of eggshell liability. It argues that the eggshell plaintiff rule misaligns parties’ incentives in a socially undesirable way. The rule subjects injurers to unfair surprise, fails to incentivize socially optimal behavior when injurers have imperfect information about expected accident losses, and fails to account for risk aversion, moral hazard, and judgment-proof problems. Additionally, the eggshell plaintiff rule dulls victims’ incentives to take care and to self-protect. To solve these problems, this Article proposes a revolutionary approach to eggshell liability: courts should reject the eggshell plaintiff rule and replace it with a foreseeability rule. Under this approach, tortfeasors would be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable scope of victims’ injuries. Insurance markets would then step in to compensate eggshell victims for unforeseeable losses, thereby preserving the compensatory role served by the traditional eggshell plaintiff rule without compromising optimal behavioral incentives for injurers and victims

Baseball\u27s Moral Hazard: Law, Economics, and the Designated Hitter Rule

No subject prompts greater disagreement among baseball fans than the designated hitter rule, which allows teams to designate a player to hit for the pitcher. The rule increases the number of hit batsmen, and some have suggested this effect is a result of moral hazard, which recognizes that persons insured against risk are more likely to engage in dangerous behavior. Because American League pitchers do not bat, they allegedly are not deterred by the full cost of making risky, inside pitches—namely, retribution during their next at bat. Using a law-and-economics approach, this Article concludes that the designated hitter rule creates some moral hazard, but finds that recent structural changes to the game have largely overshadowed this effect. Moreover, the benefits of the rule—including increased offense and attendance—likely outweigh its costs in the American League. This is not necessarily true in the National League, however, due to differences in fan preferences. Thus, the current hybrid system (in which the American League allows designated hitters while the National League does not) best effectuates these fan preferences, maximizing social welfare

Time Well Spent: An Economic Analysis of Daylight Saving Time Legislation

Several nations implemented daylight saving time legislation in the last century, including the United States. The United States briefly experimented with year-round daylight saving time twice—during World War II and the energy crises in the 1970s. Agency studies and congressional hearings from the 1970s show several benefits of year-round daylight saving time, along with potential disadvantages. These studies are dated, and much has changed in the last thirty years. While congressional efforts to extend daylight saving time in 2007 have again focused on the energy savings this legislation would produce, far more meaningful benefits have been largely ignored. This Article collects and analyzes modern research on daylight saving time, concluding that year-round daylight saving time would save hundreds of lives annually by decreasing motor vehicle and pedestrian fatalities. Furthermore, extra light in the evening hours reduces criminal activity and results in energy savings from decreased peak electricity demand. Finally, year-round daylight saving time would eliminate the negative effects caused by the current spring and fall time changes. These advantages significantly outweigh the potential costs of daylight saving during winter months. The time has come for Congress to enact year-round daylight saving time legislation-each year we wait costs hundreds of American lives and millions of dollars. Part I of this Article examines the history of daylight saving time, from its origins as satirical fodder to the debates of the present day. This history shows that the United States has had an inconsistent (and not always rational) experience with daylight saving time. The nation oscillated between periods of uniform time observance and local time observance. It has twice experimented with year-round daylight saving time. If nothing else, the current summer observance of daylight saving time in the United States constitutes a middle point between the extremes of the past. Part II of this Article examines empirical results, focusing in particular on studies and research from the United States\u27 1974 experiment with year-round daylight saving time during the energy crises. Agency studies and congressional hearings from the 1970s highlight several advantages and disadvantages of extended daylight saving. This portion of the Article also stresses that these dated studies should inform our analysis of the issue, but they should not dictate our conclusions-much has changed in the last thirty years. Finally, Part III examines current studies and research using cost-benefit analysis and argues that Congress should implement year-round daylight saving time. Studies show that year-round daylight saving time has several significant advantages, including a decrease in motor vehicle and pedestrian fatalities, energy savings from reduced peak electricity demands, and a potential decrease in crime. Additionally, year-round daylight saving time avoids negative effects caused by the current spring and fall time changes. Finally, year-round daylight saving time does not endanger school children, and its benefits outweigh other notable disadvantages. Thus, on balance, the benefits of extending daylight saving time dramatically outweigh its costs, and Congress should step up to adopt year-round daylight saving time legislation before hundreds of additional lives are sacrificed by those who seek nothing better than the status quo

Single-cell RNA sequencing of neurofibromas reveals a tumor microenvironment favorable for neural regeneration and immune suppression in a neurofibromatosis type 1 porcine model

Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is one of the most common genetically inherited disorders that affects 1 in 3000 children annually. Clinical manifestations vary widely but nearly always include the development of cutaneous, plexiform and diffuse neurofibromas that are managed over many years. Recent single-cell transcriptomics profiling efforts of neurofibromas have begun to reveal cell signaling processes. However, the cell signaling networks in mature, non-cutaneous neurofibromas remain unexplored. Here, we present insights into the cellular composition and signaling within mature neurofibromas, contrasting with normal adjacent tissue, in a porcine model of NF1 using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis and histopathological characterization. These neurofibromas exhibited classic diffuse-type histologic morphology and expected patterns of S100, SOX10, GFAP, and CD34 immunohistochemistry. The porcine mature neurofibromas closely resemble human neurofibromas histologically and contain all known cellular components of their human counterparts. The scRNA-seq confirmed the presence of all expected cell types within these neurofibromas and identified novel populations of fibroblasts and immune cells, which may contribute to the tumor microenvironment by suppressing inflammation, promoting M2 macrophage polarization, increasing fibrosis, and driving the proliferation of Schwann cells. Notably, we identified tumor-associated IDO1+/CD274+ (PD-L1)+ dendritic cells, which represent the first such observation in any NF1 animal model and suggest the role of the upregulation of immune checkpoints in mature neurofibromas. Finally, we observed that cell types in the tumor microenvironment are poised to promote immune evasion, extracellular matrix reconstruction, and nerve regeneration

Washington\u27s Title Match: The Single-Subject and Subject-in-Title Rules of Article II, Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution

Article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution provides that [n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. This provision contains two rules. First, an act violates the single-subject rule if it has a general title and its provisions lack rational unity, or if it has a restrictive title and contains provisions not fairly within the scope of that title. Second, an act violates the subject-in-title rule if the plain language of its title does not indicate the scope and purpose of the bill to an inquiring mind, or if it does not give notice to parties whose rights and liabilities are affected by the legislation. During the 2005 legislative session, the Washington State Legislature enacted Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5395, AN ACT Relating to requiring electronic voting devices to produce paper records. This Comment argues that ESSB 5395 violates both the single-subject and subject-in-title requirements of Article II, section 19. The bill violates the single-subject rule because section 5 of the act, which requires county audits of electronic voting devices, is not fairly within the scope of its restrictive title. The bill also violates the subject-in-title rule because the plain language of its title does not provide adequate notice of the legislation\u27s scope and purpose, specifically the county audit requirement