Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Chevron; Chevron (2)
- Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council (2)
- U.S.A. (2)
- First Amendment; Establishment Clause; Religion; Kennedy (1)
- Inc.; Loper Bright; Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo; admin; administrative law; Administrative State; deference; judicial deference; agency; agency expertise; Marbury v. Madison; Magnuson-Stevens Act; Brand X; Nat’l Cable and Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv.; Burden Shifting; West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (1)
-
- Inc.; Loper Bright; Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo; admin; administrative law; Administrative State; deference; judicial deference; agency; agency expertise; Marbury v. Madison; West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency; Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; Major Questions Doctrine; MQD (1)
- Just Compensation (1)
- Justin Jones; Justin J. Pearson; Tennessee House of Representatives; Expulsion; Anti-Blackness; Original Thirty-Three; Voting Rights Act; Baker v. Carr; Black Representation; Party Realignment; Tennessee State Legislature; Procedural Rules; Tennessee General Assembly; Tennessee Constitution; Cameron Sexton; Martha Nussbaum; Disgust; Pluralistic Democracy (1)
- Kennedy v. Bremerton School District; School Board; Legislative Prayer; Legislative Prayer Exception; Lemon; Lemon v. Kurtzman; Lemon Test; Endorsement Test; Coercion Test; Prayer; Prayer in School; McCarty; Chino Valley (1)
- Preamble; Constitution; We the People; originalism; constitutional interpretation; Jacobson v. Massachusetts; constitutional history; legal history; Founding; original meaning; originalist; history; Edward Coke; William Blackstone (1)
- Privacy; right to privacy; civil rights; bodily autonomy; personal autonomy; abortion; reproductive justice; vaccine mandates; LGBTQ+; fundamental rights; constitutional law; Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut; Jacobsen v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts; compelling government interest; (1)
- South Africa; Land Reform; South African Constitution; Expropriation; US Takings Clause (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States; SCOTUS; major questions doctrine; MQD; administrative law; crypto; cryptocurrency; blockchain; crypto asset; SEC v. W.J. Howey Co.; Howey test; securities; West Virginia v. EPA; Roberts Court; judicial enforcement actions (1)
- USMCA; RRM; dispute resolution; NAFTA; trade; labor; unions; informality; wages; productivity; Mexico; formality; labor reform (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Brooklyn Law Review
Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …
When Life Takes Your Lemons: Resolving The Legislative Prayer Debate In School Board Settings In Light Of Kennedy V. Bremerton School District, Jordan Halper
Brooklyn Law Review
The COVID-19 pandemic fanned the flames of a fire that had been slowly but steadily burning since 2016, arming the loudest warriors of America’s endless culture war with a slew of new divisive issues. Virtually overnight, parental rights groups began capitalizing on the frustration in their communities in order to spur political change, training their ire toward public schools. What began as a crusade against mask mandates and vaccines manifested into a well-funded effort by ultraconservative groups to undermine the public education system as a whole. Against this backdrop, the legislative prayer exception—which was meant to sanction the practice of …
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
Brooklyn Law Review
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …
The Use Of Procedural Rules To Silence Minority Party Dissent In The Tennessee State Legislature And Its Racially Discriminatory Roots, Rosie Fatt
Journal of Law and Policy
The expulsion of two young Black legislators, Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson, from the Tennessee General Assembly in April 2023 was not an aberration. This Note argues that the expulsions follow a historical pattern of systematic marginalization of Black representative power in the South. This Note connects the history of minority exclusion in state legislatures, beginning with Black legislators barred from taking their elected seats in the Georgia House, through to the present day. Specifically, it focuses on the use of procedural rules, particularly expulsions, as tools to limit the speech and representative power of Black legislators. It discusses …
Is Usmca Good For Mexican Labor? A Preliminary Analysis Of Usmca And Labor Market Outcomes In Mexico, Diego Marroquín Bitar
Is Usmca Good For Mexican Labor? A Preliminary Analysis Of Usmca And Labor Market Outcomes In Mexico, Diego Marroquín Bitar
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) introduced significant labor provisions aimed at bolstering labor rights and promoting union democracy, representing a departure from its predecessor, the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This paper examines USMCA’s potential benefits and limitations on labor, arguing that the trade agreement’s effectiveness in improving labor conditions in Mexico may be limited. By primarily benefitting export-oriented firms, USMCA leaves a significant portion of Mexico’s workforce untouched. Moreover, USMCA's new wage requirements, intended to raise labor standards, may paradoxically increase production costs for formal firms, potentially lowering overall productivity. This paper underscores the persistent formal-informal labor divide …
South Africa Land Reform: More Is Less, Elizabeth Stephani
South Africa Land Reform: More Is Less, Elizabeth Stephani
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
In 2019, South Africa's Parliament considered a bill to amend the Constitution and expropriate land taken from black South Africans during Apartheid. The bill did not pass, despite a general consensus in the country that land reform is needed (Part I). Thus, lawmakers are challenged by exactly how to achieve equitable land reform for South Africa. This paper looks to the language of the proposed amendment and offers improvements alongside accepted U.S. legal frameworks (Part II). By comparing Just Compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and South Africa's proposed expropriation amendment, this paper advocates for clear …
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion it had established nearly fifty years prior. The Court’s decision threw into uncertainty the future of not only reproductive rights in this country, but also many other individual rights. At the same time as the decision, the world was still reeling from a global pandemic, and the development of COVID-19 vaccines had spurred widespread controversy over the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Both advocates for abortion access and opponents to vaccine mandates shared a common cry: “my …
Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, And Major Questions: A Novel Framework For Judicial Deference To Agency Legal Interpretations, Charles A. Bower
Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, And Major Questions: A Novel Framework For Judicial Deference To Agency Legal Interpretations, Charles A. Bower
Brooklyn Law Review
The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a watershed moment for administrative law. For the first time, the Court explicitly invoked the Major Questions Doctrine by name in a majority opinion. The usage of the Major Questions Doctrine is important on its own, but equally important is the fact that the longstanding Chevron doctrine played no part in the majority’s analysis. The absence of Chevron doctrine in West Virginia in favor of the Major Questions Doctrine continues a trend where the Court has been relying on Chevron less often. The threats the Chevron faces do not appear …
Preambles Before The Preamble: Rediscovering The Preamble’S Role In Constitutional Interpretation, Stuart Ford
Preambles Before The Preamble: Rediscovering The Preamble’S Role In Constitutional Interpretation, Stuart Ford
Brooklyn Law Review
This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms …