Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Chevron; Chevron (2)
- Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council (2)
- U.S.A. (2)
- 21st Amendment; Prohibition; marijuana; Dormant Commerce Clause (1)
- Adversarial proceeding (1)
-
- Antitrust Law; Labor Law; Sports Law; Nonstatutory Labor Exemption; Collective Bargaining; Ohio State; NCAA; football; NWSL; Portland Thorns; soccer; Professional Sports; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining; Rule of Reason; Clarett v. NFL; Moultrie v. National Women’s Soccer League; Mackey v. National Football League; Brown v. Pro Football (1)
- Battle of the experts (1)
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Discrimination Law; workplace discrimination; Adverse Employment Action; Hostile Work Environment; Brown v. Brody; Chambers v. District of Columbia; Circuit Split; harm; de minimis harm; Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Missouri (1)
- Civil litigation (1)
- Civil rights; police misconduct; police tort liability; intellectual history of public and private law; public law; private law; intentional infliction of emotional distress; IIED; police accountability law; Section 1983; constitutional tort; tort law; tort liability; middle spaces; racialized policing; (1)
- Conflict of interest (1)
- Disqualification doctrine (1)
- Disqualification test (1)
- Emoji; emoticon; Unicode Standard; securities law; corporate law; Rule 10b-5; Securities Exchange Act; Securities and Exchange Commission; SEC; Reddit; wallstreetbets; retail investors; Ryan Cohen; Bed Bath and Beyond; securities fraud; meme; meme stock; gamestop; In re Bed Bath & Beyond Corp.; pump and dump scheme; twitter; Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner; VADER (1)
- Expert disqualification (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witness disqualification (1)
- Expert witnesses (1)
- Experts (1)
- First Amendment; Establishment Clause; Religion; Kennedy (1)
- Health equity; race discrimination; disability discrimination; Affordable Care Act; ACA; Fair Housing Act; FHA; Civil Rights Act; health outcomes; health disparity; HUD; HHS; Title VI; Americans with Disabilities Act; ADA; (1)
- Helms Burton Act; Helms Burton Act Title III; Due Process; Personal Jurisdiction; Separation of Powers; Extraterritorial; Act of State (1)
- Housing; housing law; housing court; landlord; tenant; summary eviction proceedings; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; implied warranty of habitability; clean hands requirement; right to counsel; prefiling alternatives; notice to quit; serial eviction filings (1)
- Immigration; Constitution; Empirical; National Security (1)
- Immigration; Immigration Law; Deportation; Family Court; Family Regulation; Criminal Law; Right to Counsel; Orders of Protection; Civil Protection Order; Noncitizens; Pro Se; Unrepresented; (1)
- Inc.; Loper Bright; Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo; admin; administrative law; Administrative State; deference; judicial deference; agency; agency expertise; Marbury v. Madison; Magnuson-Stevens Act; Brand X; Nat’l Cable and Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Serv.; Burden Shifting; West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Inc.; Loper Bright; Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo; admin; administrative law; Administrative State; deference; judicial deference; agency; agency expertise; Marbury v. Madison; West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency; Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; Major Questions Doctrine; MQD (1)
- Inc.; draft eligibility rule (1)
- Inherent authority (1)
- Inherent judicial authority (1)
Articles 1 - 20 of 20
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unintended Consequences: The New Test For Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions, Jeff Berryman
Unintended Consequences: The New Test For Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions, Jeff Berryman
Brooklyn Law Review
Interlocutory mandatory injunctions can be an important remedy during the pendency of a trial. With its decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada revised its test for an interlocutory mandatory injunction, holding that it should require a higher threshold and be therefore harder to obtain than an interlocutory prohibitive injunction. This higher threshold requires that the applicant demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial based on law and evidence. This change adds uncertainty to the process, ultimately complicating and adding costs to litigation.
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Brooklyn Law Review
Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …
Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver
Nationwide Injunctions And The Administrative State, Russell L. Weaver
Brooklyn Law Review
Where an administrative regulation is deemed by a court to be illegal, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid, courts sometimes issue nationwide injunctions. In other words, instead of holding that the regulation cannot be applied to the individuals before the court, the court prohibits the agency from applying the regulation anywhere in the country, including to others not before the court. This article explores the debate surrounding the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions. While at first glance such injunctions may seem to make sense, they can have serious consequences, including risk of abuse and forum shopping, amplification of erroneous decisions, and the negative …
Clarett, Moultrie, And Applying The Nonstatutory Labor Exemption To Professional Sports’ Draft Eligibility Rules, Mathew Santoyo
Clarett, Moultrie, And Applying The Nonstatutory Labor Exemption To Professional Sports’ Draft Eligibility Rules, Mathew Santoyo
Brooklyn Law Review
Collective bargaining is the mechanism by which major sports leagues and their players unions have negotiated the terms and conditions of employment for many decades. One standard provision of these collective bargaining agreements is a draft eligibility rule governing the conditions by which prospective athletes are eligible for the league’s entry draft. These collective bargaining agreements exists at the intersection of two somewhat discordant areas of law: antitrust and labor law. Under antitrust law, Congress enacted a policy favoring competition and prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade. On the other hand, under labor law, Congress enacted a policy favoring collective bargaining. …
Nonparty Litigation Holds: Clear To Implement. Complex To Lift., Alexis Bianco-Burrill
Nonparty Litigation Holds: Clear To Implement. Complex To Lift., Alexis Bianco-Burrill
Brooklyn Law Review
Legal holds have long been used by parties, and nonparties alike, as a fundamental tool to preserve information that could be needed in litigation. There are a breadth of statutes, case law, and scholarly work clarifying when a party has the duty to preserve documents and therefore issues legal holds under federal law, as well as when nonparties share this same duty. Although the question of when to issue a legal hold has a clear answer, the problem of when a nonparty can lift a litigation hold is much more complex. Often, nonparties who have been requested to preserve documents …
When Life Takes Your Lemons: Resolving The Legislative Prayer Debate In School Board Settings In Light Of Kennedy V. Bremerton School District, Jordan Halper
Brooklyn Law Review
The COVID-19 pandemic fanned the flames of a fire that had been slowly but steadily burning since 2016, arming the loudest warriors of America’s endless culture war with a slew of new divisive issues. Virtually overnight, parental rights groups began capitalizing on the frustration in their communities in order to spur political change, training their ire toward public schools. What began as a crusade against mask mandates and vaccines manifested into a well-funded effort by ultraconservative groups to undermine the public education system as a whole. Against this backdrop, the legislative prayer exception—which was meant to sanction the practice of …
Summary Eviction Proceedings As A Debt Collection Tool: How Landlords Use Serial Eviction Filings To Collect Rent, Grace Vetromile
Summary Eviction Proceedings As A Debt Collection Tool: How Landlords Use Serial Eviction Filings To Collect Rent, Grace Vetromile
Brooklyn Law Review
This note explores how landlords use housing court as a debt collection tool, impacting the rights of tenants and their ability to fairly adjudicate claims in summary eviction proceedings. Disparities in the number of evictions that are filed, as compared to evictions that are ultimately executed, indicate that landlords do not always use eviction proceedings to kick out a tenant, but rather as a method of debt collection. Using these proceedings in this manner affects a tenant’s ability to defend against eviction, even when the tenant has meritorious claims that their landlord did not provide a habitable apartment. This note …
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
Brooklyn Law Review
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …
Dogma, Discrimination, And Doctrinal Disarray: A New Test To Define Harm Under Title Vii, Zach Islam
Dogma, Discrimination, And Doctrinal Disarray: A New Test To Define Harm Under Title Vii, Zach Islam
Brooklyn Law Review
Historically, federal courts have used the “adverse employment action” test in Title VII disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation cases to determine whether a plaintiff has suffered adequate harm. This note argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed. At the outset, the test is a judicial power grab with no support in the statutory language. What is more, it fails to uphold the plain policy purposes for Title VII by largely ignoring evidence of discriminatory acts in the workplace that Congress sought to prevent in passing the statute. Consequently, Title VII plaintiffs get the short end of the stick with …
A New Private Law Of Policing, Cristina Carmody Tilley
A New Private Law Of Policing, Cristina Carmody Tilley
Brooklyn Law Review
American law and American life are asymmetrical. Law divides neatly in two: public and private. But life is lived in three distinct spaces: pure public, pure private, and hybrid middle spaces that are neither state nor home. Which body of law governs the shops, gyms, and workplaces that are formally accessible to all, but functionally hostile to Black, female, poor, and other marginalized Americans? From the liberal midcentury onward, social justice advocates have treated these spaces as fundamentally public and fully remediable via public law equity commands. This article takes a broader view. It urges a tort law revival in …
Affirmatively Furthering Health Equity, Mary Crossley
Affirmatively Furthering Health Equity, Mary Crossley
Brooklyn Law Review
Pervasive health disparities in the United States undermine both public health and social cohesion. Because of the enormity of the healthcare sector, government action, standing alone, is limited in its power to remedy health disparities. This article proposes a novel approach to distributing responsibility for promoting health equity broadly among public and private actors in the healthcare sector. Specifically, it recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services issue guidance articulating an obligation on the part of all recipients of federal healthcare funding to act affirmatively to advance health equity. The Fair Housing Act’s requirement that recipients of federal …
Full Moon Or Full Fraud? A Proposed Method For Interpreting Emojis Under Rule 10b-5, Sophie Abrams
Full Moon Or Full Fraud? A Proposed Method For Interpreting Emojis Under Rule 10b-5, Sophie Abrams
Brooklyn Law Review
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans who were stuck at home turned to social media forums in search of community and investing advice. Fifteen million (and counting) of them found community in r/wallstreetbets, a group on Reddit that banded together to drive up the prices of “meme stocks.” Bed Bath and Beyond was one stock that piqued retail investors’ interest after seeing billionaire investor Ryan Cohen take a 10 percent stake and activist role in the company. However, Cohen ended up being a large disappointment to his retail investor fans, as he subsequently sold off his stake …
Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, And Major Questions: A Novel Framework For Judicial Deference To Agency Legal Interpretations, Charles A. Bower
Balancing Chevron, Skidmore, And Major Questions: A Novel Framework For Judicial Deference To Agency Legal Interpretations, Charles A. Bower
Brooklyn Law Review
The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a watershed moment for administrative law. For the first time, the Court explicitly invoked the Major Questions Doctrine by name in a majority opinion. The usage of the Major Questions Doctrine is important on its own, but equally important is the fact that the longstanding Chevron doctrine played no part in the majority’s analysis. The absence of Chevron doctrine in West Virginia in favor of the Major Questions Doctrine continues a trend where the Court has been relying on Chevron less often. The threats the Chevron faces do not appear …
Democratizing New York’S Eminent Domain Regime, Gregory Wagner
Democratizing New York’S Eminent Domain Regime, Gregory Wagner
Brooklyn Law Review
Since the Supreme Court’s landmark eminent domain decision in Kelo v. City of New London, forty-three states have amended their eminent domain laws to constrain their own eminent domain powers. New York, however, was not one of them. In Goldstein v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corp., New York’s highest court decided firmly in favor of the state’s broad eminent domain powers, yet counseled New York lawmakers to act to legislatively limit the state’s unbridled eminent domain authority. Again, New York did not do so—allowing an eminent domain regime that leads to systemic deprivation of public participation to remain fully in …
Balancing Preservation With Growth: How Less Judicial Deference To Decisions Made By The Landmarks Preservation Commission Can Save New York City, Amy Cushman
Brooklyn Law Review
The New York City Landmarks Law of 1965, envisioning the preservation of historical treasures, empowered the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) with the authority to designate and regulate landmarks and historic districts. Originally established in response to public outcry over the loss of iconic architectural structures, the LPC aimed to safeguard the city's cultural, social, and architectural legacy. However, this note contends that recent LPC decisions, particularly the issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness for luxury residential construction involving partial demolition of landmarks, betray the original preservation goals. Delving into the legal recourse available under the New York Civil …
Order Of Protection Or Deportation? How Civil Orders Of Protection Entangle Noncitizens And Their Families In The Immigration And Criminal Legal Systems, Creating The Harm That They Were Intended To Prevent., Sarah E. Corsico
Brooklyn Law Review
A civil protection order can act as an important form of relief for an individual experiencing violence; however, it can also bring extreme complications and consequences for noncitizens. Unlike its intended purpose as a remedy separate from punitive state systems, civil protection orders can replicate the harm of the criminal legal system for noncitizens—barring someone from gaining immigration status, delaying applications, impacting international travel, and at its worst, resulting in deportation. Despite the high stakes nature of these proceeding, for the most part, there is no right to assigned counsel in civil protection order cases. As a result, many individuals …
An Unreasonable Presumption: The National Security/Foreign Affairs Nexus In Immigration Law, Anthony J. Demattee, Matthew J. Lindsay, Hallie Ludsin
An Unreasonable Presumption: The National Security/Foreign Affairs Nexus In Immigration Law, Anthony J. Demattee, Matthew J. Lindsay, Hallie Ludsin
Brooklyn Law Review
For well over a century, immigration has occupied a constitutionally unique niche within US public law. Noncitizens in immigration proceedings are routinely denied constitutional guarantees, including due process and equal protection, that apply in virtually every other legal setting. Courts justify their extraordinary deference to the government by invoking a presumptive nexus between immigration, on the one hand, and national security and foreign affairs, on the other. Critically, courts cite the national security/foreign affairs nexus regardless of whether the specific regulation or enforcement action under review has any plausible bearing on those interests. This article is the first to demonstrate …
Libertad For All? Why The Helms-Burton Act Is An Empty Promise Of “Freedom” For The Cuban People., Cristina L. Lang
Libertad For All? Why The Helms-Burton Act Is An Empty Promise Of “Freedom” For The Cuban People., Cristina L. Lang
Brooklyn Law Review
After the Cuban Revolution, the Castro government nationalized the property of many American nationals, which served as a justification for the Kennedy administration’s decision to institute a general economic embargo on Cuba. This embargo was officially codified in the late 1990s in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act, enacted by President Bill Clinton. Title III of this Act was suspended since its enactment. By creating a private cause of action for American nationals to sue “traffickers” of their improperly nationalized Cuban property, Title III aims to deter foreign investment into Cuba and compensate American citizens whose Cuban property …
It’S 1919 Somewhere: What Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association V. Thomas Means For The National Hangover Of The Twenty-First Amendment, The Dormant Commerce Clause, And Federal Legalization Of Intoxicating Substances., Evan W. Saunders
Brooklyn Law Review
The United States has a drinking problem; or rather, an alcohol problem. In the aftermath of Prohibition and the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment, the Supreme Court has struggled to settle upon an overarching regulatory system for alcohol that is amenable to both the federal government and the states. Most recently, in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, the Court further asserted that alcohol should be treated just like any other good under the Dormant Commerce Clause. This note examines the Court’s Twenty-First Amendment jurisprudence leading up to Tennessee Wine, and suggests an alternate interpretation of the amendment …
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
Brooklyn Law Review
In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …