Law Commons^™

Toothless Trade? Implications Of The Federal Circuit’S Clearcorrect Decision For The Enforceability Of Intellectual Property Protections In Digital Trade Under Usmca, Alissa Chase

Catholic University Law Review

Digital trade is growing faster than trade in goods and services and comprises a key area for innovation and intellectual property concerns. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) acknowledged this development by including chapters devoted to both digital trade and intellectual property. In 2015, the Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) does not have jurisdiction over unfairly traded digital goods. Without exclusion orders issued by the ITC, the United States lacks a powerful tool to enforce the USMCA provisions protecting intellectual property in unfairly traded digital goods. This comment explores the implications of the Federal Circuit’s 2015 ClearCorrect …

Short Circuiting The Administrative Judiciary: A Response To Linda Jellum, Marshall J. Breger

Scholarly Articles

Linda Jellum provides a powerful analysis of the status of the exhaustion process for the SEC administrative judiciary and more broadly of the entire administrative judiciary. Many of her arguments are telling and on point. I disagree with a number of her technical and statutory arguments, and even more so the consequences of her analysis for the administrative state as we know it.

Jellum's argument is that Congress did not intend to preclude district courts from hearing constitutional challenges to SEC adjudications because agency ALJs are not the right adjudicators to hear challenges to the constitutionality of their own operations.

The Appropriate Appropriations Inquiry, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument this fall concerning whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutionally self-funded. The question presented in the case asks whether the statute establishing the CFPB’s self-funding scheme, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, “violates the Appropriations Clause.” But that question is incomplete at best, because although the Appropriations Clause requires that “appropriations” be “made by law,” the Appropriations Clause does not itself vest Congress with any authority to make “law” in the first place. Instead, Congress’s authority to make appropriations laws is vested in part by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, …

“Recommend . . . Measures”: A Textualist Reformulation Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Chad Squitieri

Scholarly Articles

Following Biden v. Nebraska, defenders of the major questions doctrine (which requires administrative agencies to identify “clear congressional authorization” to regulate “major” issues) can be categorized as falling within one of two camps. The first camp includes Justices Gorsuch and Alito, who view the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon. The second camp includes Justice Barrett, who explained in Nebraska that she is “wary” of adopting new substantive canons, and indicated that she considers the major questions doctrine to be a linguistic canon. Interestingly, both camps have relied on an influential scholar to advance their positions: then Professor …

Judicial Deference To Agency Action Based On Ai, Cade Mallett

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.