Law Commons^™

Animal Legal Defense Fund V. Otter: Industrial Food Production Simply Is Not A Private Matter, Lucy L. Holifield

Journal of Food Law & Policy

About half of the states have either passed or attempted to pass laws aimed at stifling criticism and exposure of factory farms throughout the country. This unwanted exposure is often the result of undercover reporters gaining access to the interior of meat-producing entities by seeking and obtaining employment. Their reports often expose filthy and dangerous conditions, substantial animal abuse, and the incorporation of unfit animal products into the public's food supply.

Consent By Registration: The "Back-Door Thief", Nate Arrington

Arkansas Law Review

Consider this personal jurisdiction quandary: A growing Arizona company wants to start expanding into other states. The company is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Arizona. It decides to make the leap and begins registering to do business in a few surrounding states, including New Mexico. The registration seems straightforward and does not mention anything about jurisdiction. After the registration, but before conducting any business in New Mexico, a Kentucky resident decides to sue the Arizona-based corporation. The suit is based on an alleged tort occurring in Utah, and the plaintiff files the lawsuit in …

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …

Due Process In International Antitrust Enforcement: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

The past year has witnessed an upsurge of international interest in due process in antitrust enforcement, reflected in two new comparative studies and International Competition Network’s (ICN’s) May 2019 adoption of its Recommended Practices for Investigative Process and Framework for Competition Agency Procedures and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Competition Committee’s discussion of the Draft Recommendation on Transparency and Procedural Fairness in Competition Law Enforcement in June 2019. This article reviews those developments, traces key differences among them, and looks ahead to what comes next.

Punishment Without Process: Victim Impact Proceedings For Dead Defendants, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

After Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in jail, two judges allowed his accusers to speak in court. This article argues that the proceedings were inappropriate because the criminal case ends when the defendant dies. If the conviction and appeal are not final, there is no finding of guilt, and the defendant is still presumed innocent. Allowing accusers to speak at this time violates the principle of due process and threatens to undermine faith in judges and the criminal justice system in general. While courts are at times legally required to hear from victims of crimes, they were not allowed to do …

Missed Opportunities: The Unrealized Equal Protection Framework In Maher V. Roe And Harris V. Mcrae, Amelia Bailey

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

This Note focuses on two cases, Maher v. Roe and Harris v. McRae, and argues that they represent watershed moments in the reproductive rights movement because they positioned abortion as a fundamental right in name only. In both cases, the Supreme Court sanctioned severe funding restrictions and refused to grant poor women the right to state and federal assistance for elective and “nontherapeutic” abortions. “Non-therapeutic abortion” refers to those abortions performed or induced when the life of the mother is not endangered if the fetus is carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother is not the …

Lessons From Sec V. Citigroup: The Optimal Scope For Judicial Review Of Agency Consent Decrees, Dorothy S. Lund

Faculty Scholarship

On November 28, 2011, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan declined to approve a consent judgment between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Citigroup. Because Citigroup had not admitted or denied the allegations in the consent decree, Judge Rakoff concluded that he was unable to make an informed judgment about the merits of the settlement. Judge Rakoffs decision has garnered serious criticism from legal observers and rekindled discussion about the scope of judicial review of agency consent decrees, which have become a valuable agency enforcement tool. …

Buried Online: State Laws That Limit E-Commerce In Caskets, Jerry Ellig, Asheesh Agarwal

ExpressO

Consumers seeking to purchase caskets online could benefit from the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision that states cannot discriminate against interstate direct wine shipment. Federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions when asked whether state laws requiring casket sellers to be licensed funeral directors violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. In Powers v. Harris, the 10th Circuit even offered an unprecedented ruling that economic protectionism is a legitimate state interest that can justify otherwise unconstitutional policies. In Granholm v. Heald, however, the Supreme Court declared that discriminatory barriers to interstate wine shipment must be justified by a legitimate state interest, and …

Jam For Justice Holmes: Reassessing The Significance Of Mahon, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When courts and commentators discuss Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, they use the same word with remarkable regularity: famous. Mahon has achieved this fame in part because it was the occasion for conflict between judicial giants, and because the result seems ironic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--the great Lochner dissenter and a jurist generally considered a champion of judicial deference to legislatures in the sphere of economic decision-making--wrote the opinion striking down a Pennsylvania statute barring coal mining that could cause the surface to cave-in. Sharply dissenting from Holmes's opinion was his consistent ally on the Court, Justice Louis …

Understanding Mahon In Historical Context, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite its enormous influence on constitutional law, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon is just such an opinion; the primary purpose of the author’s article Jam for Justice Holmes: Reassessing the Significance of Mahon is to clarify Holmes's intent by placing the opinion in historical context and in the context of Holmes's other opinions. While other scholars have also sought to place Mahon in context, his account differs in large part because of its recognition, as part of the background of Mahon, of a separate line of cases involving businesses affected with a public interest.

The author argues that at …

Economic Due Process And The Takings Clause, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The discussion which follows will examine the new verbalizations repeatedly employed in Supreme Court takings decisions of the past decade and the Court's enlistment of the just compensation requirement as a basis for undertaking substantive review of legislation. As an introduction, the distinctive historical roles and roots of the substantive due process and just compensation requirements will be reviewed.

Constitutional Law - Validity Of Mortgage Moratorium Act - Effect Of Lapse Of Time On "Emergency'' Legislation, Ralph Winkler

Michigan Law Review

A mortgage moratorium law was enacted in Nebraska in 1933. It was re-enacted in 1935 and again in 1937. The act recited that an emergency existed and that the law was adopted to provide for this condition. The instant case involved the constitutionality of this law. A majority of the court held that the law violated the due process clause and the contracts clause of the state constitution. While the court admitted that "land values have not been restored to the prices they had attained prior to March 1, 1934," nevertheless, "It appears that there is no crisis now prevailing …

Constitutional Law-Mortgage Foreclosure Moratorium Statutes

Michigan Law Review

The present economic crisis has been productive of much drastic legislation which is directed at the relief of the debtor class. Rather than let the depression run its course, legislative bodies have endeavored to alleviate some of the evils by so-called "emergency'' statutes. A common type of such enactment is that designed to protect mortgagors against foreclosure and sale of their property. Some of these statutes provide that the period of redemption after foreclosure sale shall be extended for a definite period, others that the courts may stay foreclosures, and some provide that there shall be no foreclosure sales unless …