Law Commons^™

Reynolds Revisited: The Original Meaning Of Reynolds V. United States And Free Exercise After Fulton, Clark B. Lombardi

Articles

This Article calls for a profound reevaluation of the stories that are being told today about the Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence starting with the Court’s seminal 1879 decision in Reynolds v. United States and proceeding up to the present day. Scholars and judges today agree that the Supreme Court in Reynolds interpreted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to protect only religious belief and not religiously motivated action. All casebooks today embrace this interpretation of the case, and the Supreme Court has regularly endorsed it over the past twenty years, most recently in 2022. However, this Article …

Amicus Brief Of Native Nations In Montana, Kathryn Shanley, And Denise Juneau, Held V. State Of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Docket No. Da 23-0575, Monte Mills, Jeremiah Chin, Mia Montoya Hammersley, Fredrick Ole Ikayo, Clare Derby, Natasha De La Cruz

Court Briefs

Montana’s Constitution specifically recognizes and protects the right of Native Nations and Indigenous individuals to preserve and sustain their cultural traditions through the education of future generations. These rights are inherently tied to the right to a clean and healthful environment.

A Tale Of Two Subject-To-Tax Rules, Sol Picciotto, Jeffery M. Kadet, Bob Michel

Articles

In this article, we analyze and compare two proposals for a new subject-to-tax rule (STTR) provision to be included in tax treaties, one from the U.N. Tax Committee and the other from the G20/OECD inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. The U.N. proposal is broad, and would clarify that restrictions in tax treaties on taxation of income at the source where it is derived are conditional on that income being taxed at an agreed-upon minimum rate in the country where it is received. The inclusive framework version is much more limited, being confined to payments between connected entities …

What Can State Medical Boards Do To Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?, Tristan Mcintosh, Elizabeth Pendo, Heidi A. Walsh, Kari A. Baldwin, Patricia King, Emily E. Anderson, Catherine V. Caldicott, Jeffrey D. Carter, Sandra H. Johnson, Katherine Matthews, William A. Norcross, Dana C. Shaffer, James M. Dubois

Articles

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team’s larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.

Distinguishing Privacy Law: A Critique Of Privacy As Social Taxonomy, María P. Angel, Ryan Calo

Articles

What distinguishes privacy violations from other harms? This has proven a surprisingly difficult question to answer. For over a century, privacy law scholars labored to define the elusive concept of privacy. Then they gave up. Efforts to distinguish privacy were superseded at the turn of the millennium by a new approach: a taxonomy of privacy problems grounded in social recognition. Privacy law became the field that simply studies whatever courts or scholars talk about as related to privacy.

Decades into privacy as social taxonomy, the field has expanded to encompass a broad range of information-based harms—from consumer manipulation to algorithmic …

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Becerra V. San Carlos Apache Tribe, Becerra V. Northern Arapaho Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Docket Nos. 23-250 & 23-253, Gregory Ablavsky, Seth Davis, Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Ethan J. Leib, Dan Lewerenz, Nazune Menka, Monte Mills, Richard Monette, Joseph William Singer, Gerald Torres, Rebecca Tsosie

Court Briefs

Congress has enacted into law thousands of statutory provisions containing rules of construction. These rules direct courts to the permissible interpretations of the statutes that Congress enacts.

With respect to the self-determination contracts between Indian tribes and the United States at issue in these cases, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) prescribes two interpretive rules that serve as congressional directives to this Court. First, each provision of the self-determination contract must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. Second, the same is true of the statute itself: each provision of the ISDA must be construed liberally …