Law Commons^™

Three Narratives Of Medellín V. Texas, Margaret E. Mcguiness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Every once in a while, a Supreme Court case comes along that holds a mirror up to the changing face of the American polity. Medellín v. Texas (Medellín II) is such a case, reflecting divisive national debates over immigration, the death penalty, victims' rights, the scope of executive power, U.S. adherence to international human rights standards, the salience of international law to national security, and the appropriate role of judicial review of political decisions. Which of those issues stands out among the reflected images depends on who is peering into the mirror.

For international law scholars, the significance of …

Supreme Court Clerks' Recollections Of October Term 1951, Including The Steel Seizure Cases, John Q. Barrett, Charles C. Hileman, Abner J. Mikva, James C.N. Paul, Neal P. Rutledge, Marshall L. Small, William H. Rehnquist, Gregory L. Peterson, Ken Gormley

Faculty Publications

A roundtable panel discussion at the Chautauqua Institution. The panel brought together five lawyers who fifty-five years ago served as law clerks to Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The panelists discussed the Justices and some of the cases of that Supreme Court Term, including the Steel Seizure Cases,1 which came to the Supreme Court in the spring of 1952. The honored guests and panelists are five lawyers who have led high-achieving, diverse and public-spirited lives: Charles C. Hileman, Abner J. Mikva , James C.N. Paul , Neal Person Rutledge, Marshall L. Small.

Prediction Markets And The First Amendment, Miriam A. Cherry, Robert L. Rogers

Faculty Publications

The continuing development of prediction markets is important because of their success in foretelling the future in politics, economics, and science. In this article, we identify the expressive elements inherent in prediction markets and explore how legislation such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 might harm such predictive speech. This article is the first to explore First Amendment protections for prediction markets in such depth, and in so doing, we distinguish prediction markets from other regulated areas such as gambling, commodities, and securities trading. The article’s examination of prediction markets also illustrates the limitations of current commercial …

Return To Missouri V. Holland: Symposium Foreword, Margaret E. Mcguiness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Columbia, Missouri is a fitting venue at which to continue the conversation about Missouri v. Holland and explore the intersection of law-making at the international, national and sub-national levels. This symposium revisits the debate over national and local control over foreign affairs and brings together the constitutional doctrinal discussion and accounts of the globalization of regulation that consider the complexity of influences operating within and between multiple systems of law. Both the factual background of Holland (primarily a case about environmental regulation) and the doctrinal context in which it arose (a Supreme Court poised to move toward constitutional endorsement …

Federalism And Horizontality In International Human Rights, Margaret E. Mcguiness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The advent of the international human rights system is one of the many changes to international law since the time Missouri v. Holland was decided. As other contributions to this symposium note, one of the challenging federalism questions raised by Holland in this new era is the effect of international human rights treaties and emerging customary international human rights law on U.S. states. And just as the creation of the international human rights regime has affected domestic analysis of federalism, the international human rights system has itself adjusted to the processes of federalism.

The human rights regime is largely …

The Problem Of Religious Learning, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

The problem of religious learning is that religion—including the teaching about religion—must be separated from liberal public education, but that the two cannot be entirely separated if the aims of liberal public education are to be realized. It is a problem that has gone largely unexamined by courts, constitutional scholars, and other legal theorists. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has offered a few terse statements about the permissibility of teaching about religion in its Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and scholars frequently urge policies for or against such controversial subjects as Intelligent Design or graduation prayers, insufficient attention has been paid to …