Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (8)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (2)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (1)
- Georgetown University Law Center (1)
-
- New York Law School (1)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (5)
- Supreme Court (5)
- Constitution (4)
- Free speech (4)
- Black Law Student Association (3)
-
- Black Law Students (3)
- Black Laywers (3)
- Seattle University Law Review (3)
- Symposium (3)
- Appointments Clause (2)
- Constitutional law (2)
- Democracy (2)
- Property law (2)
- Separation of powers (2)
- 10th Circuit (1)
- 303 Creative LLC (1)
- Abbas (1)
- Abolitionists (1)
- Access to justice (1)
- Affidavits (1)
- Ag-gag (1)
- Agency action (1)
- Agricultural business entities (1)
- And the “Best Test” for Right of Publicity Issues (1)
- Animal abuse (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Anti-SLAPP statutes (1)
- Appointments Clause challenges (1)
- Appropriation (1)
- Arkansas State Plant Board (1)
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (8)
- Touro Law Review (2)
- Arkansas Law Review (1)
- Articles (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
-
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (1)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (1)
- Honors Theses (1)
- Journal of Food Law & Policy (1)
- Journal of Law and Policy (1)
- Other Publications (1)
- Publications (1)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (1)
- University of Richmond Law Review (1)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 23 of 23
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso
Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming.
(Anti)-Slapp Happy In Federal Court?: The Applicability Of State Anti-Slapp Statutes In Federal Court And The Need For Federal Protection Against Slapps, Caitlin Daday
Catholic University Law Review
In recent years, lawsuits known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, have become increasingly common. These suits seek to intimidate and punish people for exercising their First Amendment rights. In response to SLAPPs, over half of the states have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to protect the targets of SLAPPs. They do so by providing a mechanism for the target to dismiss the lawsuit more quickly than they would normally be able to. In federal courts, the question has arisen as to whether anti-SLAPP statutes should be applied in diversity suits given their close alignment to Federal Rules 8, 12, …
Court Rejects Web Designer’S Challenge To Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law, Arthur S. Leonard
Court Rejects Web Designer’S Challenge To Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law, Arthur S. Leonard
Other Publications
No abstract provided.
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Arkansas Law Review
In a free speech and free exercise case involving the Business Leaders in Christ at the University of Iowa, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Southern District of Iowa by holding that University officials should not be granted qualified immunity based on the student organization’s free speech claim.
Animal Legal Defense Fund V. Otter: Industrial Food Production Simply Is Not A Private Matter, Lucy L. Holifield
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.
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
Journal of Law and Policy
Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test. With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.
Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum
Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum
Villanova Environmental Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams
Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams
Honors Theses
Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.
The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …
Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley
Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley
University of Richmond Law Review
In its 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious exemptions from general laws that incidentally burdened religious practice. Sherbert, in theory, provided stringent protections for religious freedom. But those protections came at a price. Religious adherents could secure exemptions even if they had no evidence the laws they challenged unfairly targeted their religious conduct. And they could thereby undermine the policy objectives those laws sought to achieve. Because of such policy concerns, the Court progressively restricted the availability of religious exemptions. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith …
“Ooh It Makes Me Wonder”: Do The Courts Finally Understand The Problems With Copyright Infringement And Pop Music?, Kate Camarata
“Ooh It Makes Me Wonder”: Do The Courts Finally Understand The Problems With Copyright Infringement And Pop Music?, Kate Camarata
Seattle University Law Review
The interaction between music and law is unique to copyright litigation. Music is “commonly regarded as a rule-free zone,” whereas the law is structured and, in essence, the “origin for rules.” This Note explores the inherent weaknesses with the substantial similarity test for copyright infringement as it relates to popular music through the lens of the recent Ninth Circuit case, Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin.
Part I of this Note reviews the history and purpose of copyright protection as well as explains the current tests utilized by courts in copyright infringement cases. Additionally, it will also show the difficulties of …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose
Seattle University Law Review
Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff
Seattle University Law Review
Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.
Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …
Foreword, Seattle University Law Review
Introductory Remarks, Michael Rogers, Hannah Hamley, Rayshaun D. Williams
Introductory Remarks, Michael Rogers, Hannah Hamley, Rayshaun D. Williams
Seattle University Law Review
Introductory Remarks.
The Deans' Roundtable, Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean Danielle Conway, Dean Tamara Lawson, Dean Mario Barnes, Dean L. Song Richardson
The Deans' Roundtable, Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean Danielle Conway, Dean Tamara Lawson, Dean Mario Barnes, Dean L. Song Richardson
Seattle University Law Review
The Deans' Roundtable.
Comic Books, The First Amendment, And The “Best Test” For Right Of Publicity Issues, Rachel Silverstein
Comic Books, The First Amendment, And The “Best Test” For Right Of Publicity Issues, Rachel Silverstein
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Slapps Across America, Jack Toscano
Slapps Across America, Jack Toscano
Touro Law Review
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan was meant to protect our fundamental right to free speech from defamation lawsuits. However, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAPPS, continue to chill free speech through weak but expensive to defend defamation lawsuits. In response to SLAPPs many states have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that are meant to identify SLAPPs, quickly dismiss SLAPPS, and punish plaintiffs who bring SLAPPs. A difficult issue for federal courts throughout the country is whether these state anti-SLAPP statutes should apply in federal courts. This Note examines the Supreme Court opinions in Shady …
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Government Falsehoods, Democratic Harm, And The Constitution, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Second Founding And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
The Second Founding And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
Constitutional doctrine generally proceeds from the premise that the original intent and public understanding of pre-Civil War constitutional provisions carries forward unchanged from the colonial Founding era. This premise is flawed because it ignores the Nation’s Second Founding: i.e., the constitutional moment culminating in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the civil rights statutes enacted pursuant thereto. The Second Founding, in addition to providing specific new individual rights and federal powers, also represented a fundamental shift in our constitutional order. The Second Founding’s constitutional regime provided that the underlying systemic rules and norms of the First Founding’s Constitution …
The Evolution And Jurisprudence Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court And Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Of Review, Laura K. Donohue
The Evolution And Jurisprudence Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court And Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Of Review, Laura K. Donohue
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The past eight years have witnessed an explosion in the number of publicly-available opinions and orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. From only six opinions in the public domain 1978–2012, by early 2021, eighty-eight opinions had been released. The sharp departure is even more pronounced in relation to orders: from only one order declassified during 1978–2012, since 2013, 288 have been formally released. These documents highlight how the courts’s roles have evolved since 2004 and reveal four key areas that dominate the courts’ jurisprudence: its position as a specialized, Article III …