Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Wrongful Improvers As A Guiding Principle For Application Of The Ftc’S Ip Deletion Requirement, Emma Elder Dec 2022

Wrongful Improvers As A Guiding Principle For Application Of The Ftc’S Ip Deletion Requirement, Emma Elder

Washington Law Review

The 2021 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into cloud storage app developer Everalbum resulted in a consent decree that required Everalbum to delete not only unlawfully collected data, but also algorithms created using that data. The FTC had imposed this kind of penalty only once before. Questions remain about how the FTC will apply this so-called intellectual property (IP) deletion requirement in the future. This Comment argues that situations where companies develop intellectual property from misappropriated consumer data are analogous to cases where courts seek to apply the property law rule of the wrongful improver, i.e., where one party knowingly …


The Helicopter State: Misuse Of Parens Patriae Unconstitutionally Precludes Individual And Class Claims, Gabrielle J. Hanna Dec 2022

The Helicopter State: Misuse Of Parens Patriae Unconstitutionally Precludes Individual And Class Claims, Gabrielle J. Hanna

Washington Law Review

The doctrine of parens patriae allows state attorneys general to represent state citizens in aggregate litigation suits that are, in many ways, similar to class actions and mass-tort actions. Its origins, however, reflect a more modest scope. Parens patriae began as a doctrine allowing the British king to protect those without the ability to protect themselves, including wards and mentally disabled individuals. The rapid expansion of parens patriae standing in the United States may be partly to blame for the relative absence of limiting requirements or even well-developed case law governing parens patriae suits. On the one hand, class actions …


When Uncle Sam Spills: A State Regulator’S Guide To Enforcement Actions Against The Federal Government Under The Clean Water Act, Ian M. Staeheli Dec 2022

When Uncle Sam Spills: A State Regulator’S Guide To Enforcement Actions Against The Federal Government Under The Clean Water Act, Ian M. Staeheli

Washington Law Review

The U.S. government is one of the largest polluters on the planet. With over 700 domestic military bases and countless more federal facilities and vessels operating within state borders, there exists an enormous potential for spills and discharges of pollutants into state waters. The regulatory burden for enforcing environmental laws against the federal government falls on the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators. But enforcing laws and regulations against the federal government and its progeny is a daunting regulatory task.

Other scholarship addresses some of the vexing peculiarities involved when regulating Uncle Sam. Those works discuss the “confusing mess” that …


Let Us Not Be Intimidated: Past And Present Applications Of Section 11(B) Of The Voting Rights Act, Carly E. Zipper Mar 2022

Let Us Not Be Intimidated: Past And Present Applications Of Section 11(B) Of The Voting Rights Act, Carly E. Zipper

Washington Law Review

As John Lewis said, “[the] vote is precious. Almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have to create a more perfect union.” The Voting Rights Act (VRA), likewise, is a powerful tool. This Comment seeks to empower voters and embolden their advocates to better use that tool with an improved understanding of its little-known protection against voter intimidation, section 11(b).

Although the term “voter intimidation” may connote armed confrontations at polling places, some forms of intimidation are much more subtle and insidious—dissuading voters from heading to the polls on election day rather than confronting them outright when …


Qualified Sovereignty, Kate Sablosky Elengold, Jonathan D. Glater Mar 2022

Qualified Sovereignty, Kate Sablosky Elengold, Jonathan D. Glater

Washington Law Review

Sometimes acts of the federal government cause harm; sometimes acts of contractors hired by the federal government cause harm. In cases involving the latter, federal contractors often invoke the sovereign’s constitutionally granted and doctrinally expanded supremacy to restrict avenues for the injured to recover even from private actors. In prior work, we analyzed how federal contractors exploit three “sovereign shield” defenses—preemption, derivative sovereign immunity, and derivative intergovernmental immunity—to evade liability, accountability, and oversight.

This Article considers whether, when, and how private federal contractors should be held accountable in a court of law. We argue that a contractor should be required …