Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Employee (2)
- Immigrant (2)
- Law enforcement (2)
- Refugee (2)
- Sanctuary cities (2)
-
- Sanctuary city (2)
- Statutory interpretation (2)
- Texas (2)
- Textualism (2)
- Anti-immigrant (1)
- Anti-immigration (1)
- Arizona (1)
- Background check (1)
- Blue collar (1)
- Border patrol (1)
- Canons of construction (1)
- Congress (1)
- Crime (1)
- Crime reporting (1)
- Data (1)
- Department of Homeland Security (1)
- Department of Labor (1)
- Documented worker (1)
- Dodd-Frank; Whistleblowing; Regulation; Regulatory Cycle (1)
- EOIR (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Executive Office of Immigration Review (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- GetMe (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Collusion, Obstruction Of Justice, And Impeachment, Ediberto Roman, Melissa Gonzalez, Dianet Torres
Collusion, Obstruction Of Justice, And Impeachment, Ediberto Roman, Melissa Gonzalez, Dianet Torres
Journal of Legislation
No abstract provided.
Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt
Originalism And Congressional Power To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Christopher W. Schmidt
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
In this Essay, I argue that originalism conflicts with the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence defining the scope of Congress’ power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the standard established in Boerne v. Flores, the Court limits congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to statutory remedies premised on judicially defined interpretations of Fourteenth Amendment rights. A commitment to originalism as a method of judicial constitutional interpretation challenges the premise of judicial interpretive supremacy in Section 5 jurisprudence in two ways. First, as a matter of history, an originalist reading of Section 5 provides support for broad judicial …
Holding Ridesharing Companies Accountable In Texas, Martha Alejandra Salas
Holding Ridesharing Companies Accountable In Texas, Martha Alejandra Salas
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming
Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon
Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming
Whistleblowers—A Case Study In The Regulatory Cycle For Financial Services, Ronald H. Filler, Jerry W. Markham
Whistleblowers—A Case Study In The Regulatory Cycle For Financial Services, Ronald H. Filler, Jerry W. Markham
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were directed by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) to create whistleblower protection programs that reward informants with massive bounty payments. At the time of its passage, the Dodd-Frank Act was a highly controversial statute that was passed on partisan lines. Its whistleblowing authority was one of its “most contentious provisions.” As the result of the 2016 elections, the Dodd-Frank Act has come under renewed attack in Congress and by the new Trump administration. The stage is being set for possible repeal of …
The Rhetorical Canons Of Construction: New Textualism's Rhetoric Problem, Charlie D. Stewart
The Rhetorical Canons Of Construction: New Textualism's Rhetoric Problem, Charlie D. Stewart
Michigan Law Review
New Textualism is ascendant. Elevated to prominence by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and championed by others like Justice Neil Gorsuch, the method of interpretation occupies an increasingly dominant place in American jurisprudence. Yet, this Comment argues the proponents of New Textualism acted unfairly to reach this lofty perch. To reach this conclusion, this Comment develops and applies a framework to evaluate the rhetoric behind New Textualism: the rhetorical canons of construction. Through the rhetorical canons, this Comment demonstrates that proponents of New Textualism advance specious arguments, declare other methods illegitimate hypocritically, refuse to engage with the merits of their …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …
The Limits Of Pro Se Assistance In Immigration Proceedings: Discussion Of Nwirp V. Sessions, Ryan D. Brunsink, Christina L. Powers
The Limits Of Pro Se Assistance In Immigration Proceedings: Discussion Of Nwirp V. Sessions, Ryan D. Brunsink, Christina L. Powers
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This Article discusses issues regarding assistance of pro se litigants in the context of immigration law. In particular, Part II of this Article highlights programs such as the Legal Orientation Program (LOP) and Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH) that attempt to alleviate some of the inherent difficulties non-citizen detainees face in immigration proceedings. Part III of this Article focuses on a 2008 Regulation by the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which calls for discipline against attorneys that engage in a pattern or practice of failing to enter a Notice of Appearance when engaged in practice or preparation. Lastly, Part IV …
Qui Tam Litigation Against Government Officials: Constitutional Implications Of A Neglected History, Randy Beck
Qui Tam Litigation Against Government Officials: Constitutional Implications Of A Neglected History, Randy Beck
Notre Dame Law Review
The Supreme Court concluded twenty-five years ago, in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, that uninjured private plaintiffs may not litigate “generalized grievances” about the legality of executive branch conduct. According to the Lujan Court, Congress lacked power to authorize suit by a plaintiff who could not establish some “particularized” injury from the challenged conduct. The Court believed litigation to require executive branch legal compliance, brought by an uninjured private party, is not a “case” or “controversy” within the Article III judicial power and impermissibly reassigns the President’s Article II responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” …
Change, Creation, And Unpredictability In Statutory Interpretation: Interpretive Canon Use In The Roberts Court's First Decade, Nina A. Mendelson
Change, Creation, And Unpredictability In Statutory Interpretation: Interpretive Canon Use In The Roberts Court's First Decade, Nina A. Mendelson
Michigan Law Review
In resolving questions of statutory meaning, the lion’s share of Roberts Court opinions considers and applies at least one interpretive canon, whether the rule against surplusage or the presumption against state law preemption. This is part of a decades-long turn toward textualist statutory interpretation in the Supreme Court. Commentators have debated how to justify canons, since they are judicially created rules that reside outside the statutory text. Earlier studies have cast substantial doubt on whether these canons can be justified as capturing congressional practices or preferences; commentators have accordingly turned toward second-order justifications, arguing that canons usefully make interpretation constrained …