Law Commons^™

The Emerging Name, Image, And Likeness Industry And The Perils Of Appropriating "Entrepreneurial" Collegiate Athletes' And "Vengeful" Minors' Property Interests - Historical And Empirical Guidance From Courts' Rights Of Publicity, Misappropriation, And Breach Of Contract Decisions, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

From the late-1880s to the early-2020s, universities and the collegiate sports industry exploited millions of "college kids" as well as their parent investors by preventing "entrepreneurial athletes" from monetizing their names, images, and likenesses (NILs). Yet, during the same era, the collegiate-athletics industry like the movie and music industries appropriated young people's NILs and pocketed billions of dollars. In 2021, the Supreme Court decided NCAA v. Alston and embraced the Ninth Circuit's ruling in O'Bannon v. NCAA. Ostensibly, these decisions and thirty plus state NIL statutes terminated the "official" exploitation of students. Currently, entrepreneurial students and some parents may commercialize …

The Supreme Court And The 117th Congress, Andrew K. Jennings, Athul K. Acharya

Faculty Articles

If the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor is confirmed before the 2020 presidential election or in the post-election lame-duck period, and if Democrats come to have unified control of government on January 20, 2021, how can they respond legislatively to the Court’s new 6-3 conservative ideological balance? This Essay frames a hypothetical 117th Congress’s options, discusses its four simplest legislative responses—expand the Court, limit its certiorari discretion, restrict its jurisdiction, or reroute its jurisdiction—and offers model statutory language for enacting those responses.

Confronting The Myth Of State Court Class Action Abuses Through An Understanding Of Heuristics And A Plea For More Statistics, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court heard six cases involving class actions this term. One of these cases, Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Knowles, brought the Class Action Fairness Act to the Court for the first time. Petitioner insurance company and its numerous business-interest amici repeatedly claimed before the Court that "state court class action abuses" justified removal of the case (which was based on state law and filed in state court) to federal court.

The charge of a "flood" of "abusive state court class actions" echoed the same rhetoric that CAFA's supporters used a decade ago in their ultimately successful efforts to …