Skip to main content
Article
Clear Rules - Not Necessarily Simple or Accessible Ones
Virginia Law Review In Brief (2011)
  • Lumen N. Mulligan
Abstract
In The Complexity of Jurisdictional Clarity, 97 VA. L. REV. 1 (2011), Professor Dodson argues that the traditional call for clear and simple rules über alles in subject matter jurisdiction is misplaced. In this response essay, I begin by arguing that Dodson, while offering many valuable insights, does not adequately distinguish between the separate notions of simplicity, clarity, and accessibility. Second, I note that crafting a clarity enhancing rule, even if complex and inaccessible, may be a more promising endeavor than the search for a regime that is at once clear, simple and accessible. In the third section, I contend that a focus on clarity in isolation, in lieu of simplicity or accessibility, both furthers Dodson’s project of illustrating that the value of clarity is often a false idol and reveals the inherently empirical nature of the question. I close by noting that although Dodson’s piece importantly demonstrates that jurisdictional clarity comes at a cost, his inability to resolve these underlying empirical questions makes it unlikely that he will quiet those advocating clarity-based jurisdictional reform.
Keywords
  • jurisdiction,
  • subject matter jurisdiction,
  • jurisdictional rules,
  • federal courts,
  • civil procedure,
  • legal reform,
  • legal complexity
Publication Date
2011
Citation Information
Lumen N. Mulligan. "Clear Rules - Not Necessarily Simple or Accessible Ones" Virginia Law Review In Brief Vol. 97 (2011) p. 13
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lumen_mulligan/9/