Law Commons^™

Agency Self-Funding In The Antinovelty Age, Zois Manaris

William & Mary Law Review Online

This Article demonstrates that CFSA's [Community Financial Services Association of American v. CFPB] introduction of antinovelty into the self-funding space, including its particular antinovelty approach, poses an existential threat to any and all agency self-funding. On its face, this may seem like something that will only worry the more functionalist or more liberal crowd—likely because so much of the recent discussion surrounding agency self-funding has revolved around the polarizing CFPB. But even those who might want the CFPB struck down and those who subscribe to the antinovelty rationale as a general matter (between those two camps there …

Direct-To-Consumer Advertising Of Prescription Drugs: Constitutionally Protected Speech Or Misinformation?, Matthew Griffin

William & Mary Law Review Online

This Note will argue that the United States can and should regulate direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements on television more strictly—preferably by proscribing them altogether. In Part I, this Note will discuss the issues of soaring drug prices, disappointing health care outcomes, a glut of misleading drug advertisements affecting the doctor-patient relationship and personal health, and the problem with the current approach to prescription drug advertising. Part I will also discuss the misleading nature of DTC prescription drug advertisements and some examples of the harm they have caused. Additionally, Part I will propose a solution that focuses on limiting the …

Core And Periphery In Constitutional Law, R. George Wright

William & Mary Law Review Online

This paper embarks on an excursion through a number of the most vital constitutional rights cases, and other contexts as well, and seeks to show that the recurring judicial attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas within any given broad constitutional right are unnecessary and distracting. Intriguingly, the case for this conclusion varies significantly depending upon the nature of the general constitutional right in question. But the overall lesson is that courts should abandon their attempts to distinguish between core and peripheral areas of any given broad constitutional right. Courts should instead focus—directly or indirectly—on their best assessment of …

Supreme Court Cases That Persist: The Japanese American Cases, Louis Fisher

William & Mary Law Review Online

As with any human institution, the United States Supreme Court makes errors that, over a period of time, need correction. By focusing on the Japanese American cases, Hirabayashi (1943) and Korematsu (1944), the record is particularly remarkable. Over many decades the Supreme Court had abundant evidence that the two decisions were defective. It was not until June 26, 2018, in Trump v. Hawaii, that the Supreme Court announced that “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided.” If Korematsu was that deficient, why did it take the Court seventy-four years to admit it? Moreover, what about Hirabayashi? The decision …

The Dobbs Effect: Abortion Rights In The Rear-View Mirror And The Civil Rights Crisis That Lies Ahead, Terri Day, Danielle Weatherby

William & Mary Law Review Online

On June 24, 2022, seven weeks after the first-ever leak of a draft opinion, the United States Supreme Court circulated its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, defying stare decisis, overruling fifty years of precedent, and shattering the hopes of millions of Americans, who wished the leaked opinion was a fiction that would never come to be.

As the leaked draft forewarned, Roe v. Wadeis no longer the law of the land. No longer is a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy—to exercise bodily autonomy and be free to control the trajectory of her life—protected as a fundamental …

Appendix: Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowman Williams

William & Mary Law Review Online

Appendix to article in William & Mary Law Review vol. 63, no. 2 (2021), "Board Gender Diversity: A Path to Achieving Substantive Equality in the United States" by Kimberly A. Houser and Jamillah Bowen Williams.

Popular Sovereignty And The Doctrine Of Plenary State Legislative Power, Nina Neff

William & Mary Law Review Online

Unlike the federal legislature, state legislatures possess plenary power, except insofar as they are limited by state constitutions. Though state plenary power is rooted in the legal authority of popular sovereignty, the doctrine of plenary state legislative power dulls democratic power by eliminating a potential right to local self-governance and by inducing courts to underenforce constitutional limits on state legislatures. These trends do not square with our democratic intuitions or with our desire to have a sense of efficacy, energy, and power in our own ability to influence the laws of our communities. This Article suggests that the doctrine of …

Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors As Proxy Tools For Original Correctness, Justin W. Aimonetti

William & Mary Law Review Online

In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 170-year-old dual-sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine permits both the federal and state governments—as “separate sovereigns”—to each prosecute a defendant for the same offense. Justice Thomas concurred with the majority opinion in Gamble, but wrote separately to reject the traditional stare decisis formulation. In particular, the factors the majority used to evaluate stare decisis, in his view, amount to nothing more than marbles placed subjectively on either side of the stare decisis balancing scale. He would have preferred, instead, an inquiry into whether the precedent was demonstrably erroneous as an original matter, …

Standing, Politics, And Exhaustion: A Response To Legislative Exhaustion, Heather Elliott

William & Mary Law Review Online

Professor Michael Sant’Ambrogio’s article, Legislative Exhaustion, usefully approaches the problem of “legislative standing” by abandoning the typical Article III standing analysis and making instead a separation-of-powers argument. His theory—that Congress may sue the President only when it has no legislative avenue for addressing its problems—provides both a workable account of and a limiting principle for suits by the legislative branch against the executive. His analysis, however, raises questions regarding the effect of legislative lawsuits on the constitutional balance of powers. This Essay suggests that these questions should be more fully explored before Professor Sant’Ambrogio’s approach can be adopted. It concludes …