Law Commons^™

Baking Common Sense Into The Ferpa Cake: How To Meaningfully Protect Student Rights And The Public Interest, Zach Greenberg, Adam Goldstein

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

“Safe Harbor” On The Rocks: Ttb Label Approval For Beer, Wine, And Spirits, And The Uncertain Status Of The “Safe Harbor” Defense, Michael Mercurio

Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law

This Note examines the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)’s label review process and the judicial split regarding the “safe harbor” doctrine in the context of alcoholic beverage labels. This Note observes that the judicial split is a result of the tension between two conflicting priorities stemming from the TTB’s purpose and identity: on one hand, courts apply Chevron deference to the TTB as a federal agency enforcing federal law, but on the other hand, courts aim to uphold the central purpose of the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) Act—protecting consumers from misinformation. Ultimately, this Note, by examining …

Defining Fair Notice: Logical Outgrowth Doctrine Applied To The Waters Of The United States, Henry L. Lifton

Notre Dame Law Review

In 2014, the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency sought to bring clarity to the scope of “waters of the United States” through notice-and-comment rulemaking. On June 29, 2015, the agencies published a joint final rule that immediately prompted lawsuits across the entire country.

This current legal controversy provides a convenient backdrop to propose a new method to analyze logical outgrowth. This Note will use the Proposed and Final Rule as an administrative law case study. It argues that the Final Rule is substantively within the authority Congress delegated to the Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

The Privacy Policymaking Of State Attorneys General, Danielle Keats Citron

Notre Dame Law Review

Much as Justice Louis Brandeis imagined states as laboratories of the law, offices of state attorneys general have been laboratories of privacy enforcement. State attorneys general have been nimble privacy enforcers whereas federal agencies have been more constrained by politics. Local knowledge, specialization, multistate coordination, and broad legal authority have allowed AG offices to fill in gaps in the law. State attorneys general have established baseline fair-information protections and expanded the frontiers of privacy law to cover sexual intimacy and youth. Their efforts have reinforced and strengthened federal norms, further harmonizing certain aspects of privacy and data security policy.

Although …