-
Jennifer Daskal
Provides a framework to better understand Global Legal Pluralism and the current international state of law.
Equips practitioners, theorists, and students with deeper insights and analytical tools to describe the conflict among legal and quasi-legal systems.Analyzes global legal pluralism in light of legal theory, constitutionalism, conflict of laws, international law, commercial transactions, and as it affects indigenous polities, religious orders, and citizenship.
-
N. Jeremi Duru
The Rooney Rule story teaches the importance of the opportunity to get into the proverbial room to make one’s case, but it also teaches the importance of creative approaches to encouraging equal opportunity. While a lawsuit can be a powerful tool in this realm, various circumstances may thwart its use. An employment discrimination claim for a head coach of a professional sports club presents a unique circumstance. The nature of the National Football League (NFL) coaching employment context rendered Title VII, the United States’ bell-weather employment discrimination statute, essentially inapplicable. Like Coca-Cola, the NFL was widely regarded as a conservative organization, and like Coca-Cola, the power positions in the NFL – including head coach – were overwhelmingly white. Mehri believed diverse candidate slates were well suited to the NFL context and anticipated they could assist in diversifying the NFL’s head coaching ranks just as they had diversified Coca-Cola’s executive ranks.
-
Christine Farley
What public policy objectives are contained in the subject-matter limitations of US trademark law? This question has recently taken on a renewed interest for US legal scholars. The general public policies that animate trademark law – encouraging fair competition and protecting consumers from deceptive practices – can certainly be found in some of the doctrines that constrain trademark subject matter. Some of the specific constraints found in US law, however, do not align with these traditional trademark policy goals. These instances raise fascinating questions, such as what policy goals are being advanced in these provisions, and are these policy goals appropriate within trademark law. These are the questions that lie behind the currently live question of whether the government’s denial of registration based on justifications outside the heart of trademark law is a valid restriction on speech.
-
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson
This Chapter explores Fourth Amendment law and history through the lens of Xavier Cortada’s painting inspired by Florida v. Jardines. At its core, Jardines is a case about the future of Fourth Amendment interpretation and how different doctrinal theories should best protect an individual’s home from unreasonable searches and seizures. Written by Justice Antonin Scalia with his characteristic irreverence, flair, and self-confidence, Jardines is a case about fundamental questions of privacy and security that turns on the constitutional significance of a police dog sniffing outside your home.
-
Susan Franck
Used for hundreds of years and adapted to a variety of contexts, arbitration is a form of adjudicative dispute settlement where parties consent to selecting third-party neutrals that resolve a specific dispute by applying the applicable law to the facts. Part of arbitration’s success involves its flexibility in adapting procedures and selecting applicable law to meet parties’ unique needs, including having some control over the appointment of an arbitrator who may have unique substantive expertise. Parties may agree to arbitration hoping to avoid the time-consuming, expensive, and complex process of litigation by streamlining or tailoring dispute mechanics. Yet, it is not empirically verifiable that arbitration always saves time and costs, as assessing relative savings requires comparison to a national court and there are over 190 national judiciaries to which arbitration could be compared, as well as nonadjudicative forms of dispute resolution like direct negotiation and mediation. As parties inevitably negotiate in the “shadow of the law,” arbitration aids the assessment of conflict management options; and, particularly internationally, arbitration remains a powerful tool that incentivizes voluntary compliance with awards and streamlines enforcement.
Despite the availability of many types of arbitration with different policy considerations, the parties’ consent to it and their agreement to arbitrate (including the applicable law) is the backbone of this form of dispute settlement. Arbitration agreements require parties to make core choices, such as deciding on the scope of agreements submitted to arbitration, the legal place of arbitration, and applicable rules. Such an agreement then provides the framework for fundamental elements of the proceedings, namely, the basis of the tribunal’s jurisdiction and power over the dispute, the standards for appointing arbitrators, the structure and rules of the proceedings, and the content and form of derivative awards. Having a valid arbitration agreement (and an arbitration proceeding conducted in accordance with those legal obligations) also influences whether courts at the place of arbitration will set the award aside and whether courts at a place of enforcement will recognize and enforce an arbitration award. In the modern era, arbitration will continue evolving to address concerns about local policy considerations (particularly in national arbitration), confidentiality and ethics, technology and cybersecurity, diversity and inclusion, and to ensure arbitration is an ongoing value proposition.
-
Claudio Grossman
La pandemia actual ha cobrado un tremendo precio a la humanidad. A la fecha, más de un millón de personas han fallecido, varios millones han sido infectadas y no se vislumbra un final para las trágicas consecuencias que la COVID-19 ha infligido a las personas. La pandemia ha afectado a todas las naciones, debido a las interconexiones en numerosos campos, incluido el comercio, las inversiones y el turismo, que, como resultado de la globalización, han multiplicado los contactos entre las personas. No obstante, la pandemia ha demostrado también que las poblaciones más vulnerables son las que más sufren. Los países con sistemas de salud inexistentes o subdesarrollados tienen una capacidad limitada para adoptar medidas preventivas y/o responder con éxito a la pandemia. En general, las poblaciones vulnerables se ven más afectadas, debido a la pobreza, la falta de conocimientos sobre salud, el acceso a la tecnología o prácticas discriminatorias profundamente arraigadas. La pandemia también ha demostrado que las posibilidades internacionales para afrontar con éxito este tremendo desafío son enormemente insuficientes.
-
Claudio Grossman
Book Description: Advocating Social Change through International Law, edited by Professors Daniel Bradlow and David Hunter, explores the use of hard and soft international law in advocating for social change. Using case studies rooted in inter aliahuman rights, international crimes, environmental protection, public heath, and financial regulation, the book focuses on both state and non-state actors’ strategic choices regarding the use of hard and soft international law in advocating for social change. Looking through the social change lens provides new insights into the interplay between soft and hard international law, the perceived costs and benefits associated with hard and soft international law in different contexts, and the factors affecting the effectiveness of hard and soft approaches to international law.
-
Claudio Grossman
-
Rebecca Hamilton
-
Maya Manian
This chapter of FEMINIST JUDGMENTS: REWRITTEN FAMILY LAW OPINIONS (Rachel Rebouche, ed. 2020) provides commentary on Susan Frelich Appleton’s rewritten majority opinion in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970). This commentary chapter complements the rewritten opinion, providing background material, analysis of the feminist judgment, and reflections on the implications of the feminist judgment for family law as well as poverty law and reproductive justice. The original opinion in Dandridge v. Williams upheld Maryland’s maximum family grant regulation (or “family cap”), which limited public assistance to poor families and effectively allocated fewer dollars to larger families. Susan Frelich Appleton’s revised judgment departs from the original opinion both rhetorically and substantively in distinctly feminist ways. Appleton uses an intersectional lens in analyzing the impact of the family cap. The feminist judgment addresses not only class, but also how systematic discrimination based on race, disability, gender, and age can intersect and operate together as interlocking systems of oppression, leading to indigence for the most vulnerable groups in society. The revised opinion also brings within judicial purview poor people’s fundamental rights of procreation and family togetherness that the original opinion undermines. Finally, the revised judgment departs most dramatically from the original opinion in its approach to the Equal Protection Clause and the welfare rights thesis — reasoning that the Constitution protects positive rights to the basic necessities of life. The feminist judgment illustrates how welfare reform is a feminist, family law, and reproductive justice issue.
-
Maya Manian
This chapter of Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten (Kimberly Mutcherson ed., 2020) reimagines the trial court opinion in In re Madyun, a case involving a court-ordered Cesarean section on a pregnant woman. The actual court case authorized a forced C-section on the plaintiff, Ayesha Madyun, based on the attending physician’s belief that delaying surgery might lead to dangerous infections in both the patient and her unborn baby. Mrs. Madyun eventually gave birth to a healthy baby boy with no sign of infection. The feminist judgment rejects the notion that courts can order forced medical treatment upon competent adult patients solely based on pregnancy. The new opinion reasons that forced C-sections not only violate the principle of informed consent and present public health risks by deterring pregnant people from seeking medical care, but also intrude upon constitutional rights of privacy and bodily integrity. Farah Diaz-Tello’s commentary complements the rewritten opinion, providing background material and analysis of the feminist judgment.
-
Fernanda Nicola
-
Fernanda Giorgia Nicola Dr.
-
Fernanda Giorgia Nicola Dr.
-
Susana Sacouto
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a court of global jurisdiction. Without unlimited resources, the Court cannot be present in every place where crimes within its jurisdiction may be committed. The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) must, therefore, regularly rely on organizations on the ground that have access to witnesses, contacts, and other information that may be crucial to its investigations and/or prosecutions. The OTP's reliance on these organizations is particularly pronounced in the context of situations or cases involving sexual and gender based crimes (SGBC), as these crimes are often under-reported in situations of conflict or mass violence, making evidence collection of such crimes particularly challenging for the Court.
-
Brenda V. Smith, Margo Schlanger, Sheila Bedi, David M. Shapiro, and Lynn S. Branham
In the age of American mass incarceration, a complex legal regime governs prison conditions and presents a host of controversial questions at the intersection of constitutional liberty, statutory interpretation, administrative regulation, and public policy. This is a completely overhauled, re-titled, and much-expanded version of the leading casebook about incarceration. It addresses both pretrial and post-conviction incarceration, presenting Supreme Court and leading lower court case law, statutes, litigation materials, professional standards, academic commentary, and prisoner writing. Topics include conditions of confinement, civil liberties, particular prisoner populations and relevant legal issues (race and national origin discrimination, the particular issues/law governing treatment of incarcerated women, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities). Litigated remedies (injunctive litigation, damages, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and criminal prosecution of prison staff), are also covered in detail, as is non-litigation oversight. The casebook is supplemented by an open-access website that offers additional resources and sources for further reading.
-
Thomas Williams
No volume on reproductive justice could be complete without addressing the seminal case of Skinner v. Oklahoma. Skinner is the first Supreme Court decision to subject a law limiting reproduction to stringent scrutiny, and it achieves this result by entwining constitutional protection of reproductive liberty with equality. Unlike the reproductive rights framework, which focuses upon the individual’s right to make reproductive choices free from government regulation, reproductive justice emphasizes the political context within which race, gender, class, and other identities intersect to result in reproductive oppression. Skinner foreshadows this broader analysis, by striking down a state sterilization statute not because it interfered with individual liberty but based upon the recognition that governmental power to draw lines regarding who could reproduce and who could not posed the threat of “invidious discriminations … against groups or types of individuals” in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality.
-
Jonas Anderson
Patent claims define the scope of the patent right and hence are central to the operation of the patent system. Patent prosecutors devote substantial effort to crafting patent claims so as to maximize the scope of their right without “reading on” prior art (and thereby defeating novelty). Businesses seeking to enter a technology marketplace must be careful to avoid encroaching patent claims. Thus, when patentees enforce their rights, the interpretation of claim boundaries guides both validity and infringement analysis.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments (517 U.S. 370 (1996)), holding that “the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court,” district judges began the practice of construing patent claims in advance of trial following so-called “Markman” hearings. These constructions became subject to appellate review after the trial or summary judgment ruling.
The Markman decision thus opened a valuable window into an important facet of patent law and the litigation process. This has led to a wide range of empirical studies examining: (1) reversal rates; (2) the sources and methodologies that judges employ in construing patent claims; and (3) appellate behavior generally. This chapter examines the hypotheses underlying these studies, the data used, the empirical methods deployed, and the principal results. It also suggests directions for further research.
-
Jonathan Baker and Andrew Gavil
This essay, written for a volume in honor of Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, explores the evolution of the rule of reason and its development into a common structured, burden shifting approach guiding judicial decisions under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. It highlights the influential role that Judge Ginsburg and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which he served, played in that evolution.
-
Michael W. Carroll
My goal in this chapter is to advance the argument that access denied to resources in digital form is a more serious, and more solvable, problem than one might glean from the literature. Digital networks make access possible to a degree that would have been unimaginable in the analog era. What was once a mix of technological and economic constraints on access is now reduced to legal, rather than technological, constraints. The library community should more explicitly commit itself to the goal of ubiquitous access to digital content.
The role of the library in public life should be to minimize or eliminate these legal barriers to access and use through a mixture of creative and fair licensing arrangements, and policy advocacy on behalf of those currently denied access. To begin to solve this problem, libraries should develop a more robust network consciousness, by which I mean they should realign institutional priorities and resources to explicitly position individual libraries and consortia as network nodes through which patrons can access networked resources or as a site of publication of networked resources. This argument recognizes that a network consciousness should not be the sum total of a library’s attentional focus. For the library has also been, and remains, an intensely local institution whose physicality through its architecture, geography, and relation to its analog resources are as important to library patrons as ever. I am convinced that libraries are capable of meeting the challenges of balancing their local and global roles if institutional leaders make this a priority.
-
Michael W. Carroll
-
Jennifer C. Daskal
-
Christine Farley
This chapter provides an overview of the public policy limitations on trademark subject matter under U.S. law. This is an area of law that had been fairly stable until recently. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision striking down the prohibition on registering disparaging marks and its 2019 decision striking down the prohibition on registering immoral and scandalous marks may prompt a larger reexamination of the policy justifications for denying trademark registration.
Printing is not supported at the primary Gallery Thumbnail page. Please first navigate to a specific Image before printing.
