Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (2)
- Judges (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
-
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- History (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Intellectual History (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legal (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- United States History (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger
Chisholm V. Georgia (1793): Laying The Foundation For Supreme Court Precedent, Abigail Stanger
The Cardinal Edge
No abstract provided.
Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han
Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han
Indiana Law Journal
Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …
How In The World Could They Reach That Conclusion?, Hon. Carlton Reeves
How In The World Could They Reach That Conclusion?, Hon. Carlton Reeves
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
No abstract provided.
Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar
Less Restrictive Alternatives And The Ancillary Restraints Doctrine, Thomas B. Nachbar
Seattle University Law Review
In Ohio v. American Express, both the majority and dissent introduced into Supreme Court antitrust jurisprudence a new test for evaluating restraints under the rule of reason: a less restrictive alternatives test. Occasionally appearing in circuit court cases, less restrictive alternatives tests have not been part of Supreme Court’s approach to the rule of reason, which generally evaluates restraints of trade by balancing their anticompetitive and procompetitive effects.
American Express was the first Supreme Court case to mention a less restrictive alternatives test, potentially representing a major shift in antitrust law, but it was not the last. In 2021’s …