Law Commons^™

Labor, Trade, And Populism: How Ilo-Wto Collaboration Can Save The Global Economic Order, Sungjoon Cho, Cesar F. Rosado-Marzan

American University Law Review

Populists are trying to take down the global economic order and its institutions. While some of those forces might be fueled by racism, they also play to legitimate social concerns that include massive plant closings and deindustrialization, inadequate skills programs, and lack of decent jobs. Some of these problems also concern the Global South, as workers there face exploitation, unhealthy working conditions, and other social ills caused by global capitalism. In light of these problems, this Article argues that the International Labor Organization (ILO) should design new conventions on lead firm liability and mass layoffs. While other scholars and policymakers …

Building Bridges: Why Expanding Optional Practical Training Is A Valid Exercise Of Agency Authority And How It Helps F-1 Students Transition To H-1b Worker Status, Pia Nitzschke

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fiscal Illusion Zombie: The Undead Theory Of Government Regulatory Incentives, Christopher Serkin

American University Law Review

This is a Response to Bethany R. Berger's recent Article, The Illusion of Fiscal Illusion in Regulatory Takings. In that Article, Professor Berger argues against the view that governments should be forced to compensate for regulatory burdens because they suffer from fiscal illusion and will only internalize the costs that they, in fact, have to pay. She demonstrates that property taxes already provide a mechanism through which governments internalize both the costs and benefits of their property regulations, and that compensation for regulatory takings is therefore unnecessary and even perverse for creating efficient regulatory incentives. This Response argues that she …

Why Anti-Surcharge Laws Do Not Violate A Merchant's Freedom Of Speech, Annie P. Anderson

American University Law Review

First Amendment litigation is surrounding state anti-surcharge laws, which prevent merchants from imposing surcharges on transactions where customers use credit cards. These laws effectively prevent stores from passing credit card "swipe fees" onto their customers. Merchants argue that because the laws still allow them to provide discounts to customers who use other forms of payment, the laws violate their First Amendment rights by impermissibly restricting the way the stores can communicate. The state governments, in contrast, have defended the laws by asserting that they regulate conduct, not business speech, and therefore do not violate the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court …