Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Business (1)
- Business regulation (1)
- Business shutdown (1)
- COVID (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
-
- Campaign finance (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Citizens United v. FEC (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
- Coronavirus pandemic (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Distributive justice (1)
- Election law (1)
- Federal Election Commission (1)
- Federal election law (1)
- Fifth amendment (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- Pandemic (1)
- Public health (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Regulatory (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Takings clause (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Business Organizations Law
The Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown And Distributive Justice: Why Courts Should Refocus The Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis, Timothy M. Harris
The Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown And Distributive Justice: Why Courts Should Refocus The Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis, Timothy M. Harris
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic and the ensuing shutdown of private businesses—to promote the public’ s health and safety— demonstrated the wide reach of state and local governments’ police power. Many businesses closed and many went bankrupt as various government programs failed to keep their enterprises afloat.
These businesses were shut down to further the national interest in stemming a global pandemic. This is an archetypal example of regulating for the public health—preventing a direct threat that sickened hundreds of thousands of Americans. But some businesses were disproportionately hit while others flourished. Many who bore the brunt of these regulations sued, …
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.
Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a descriptive …