Law Commons^™

Maryland’S "Wal-Mart" Act: Policy And Preemption, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

Maryland's Wal-Mart Act raises two fundamental questions: Is the Act legal? Does the Act represent sound policy?

With respect to the legality of the Maryland statute, I conclude that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts the Maryland law. As a matter of policy, the Maryland statute is ill-conceived. The Maryland Act raises prices on Wal-Mart's predominantly low-income customers and, for the long run, will reduce Wal-Mart's employment.

In the final analysis, Maryland's Wal-Mart Act is a poorly-designed exercise in political symbolism, rather than a carefully-crafted response to the pressing problem of health care in America.

The Demise Of Federal Takings Litigation, Stewart E. Sterk

Articles

For more than twenty years the Supreme Court has held that a federal takings claim is not ripe until the claimant seeks compensation in state court. The Court's recent opinion in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco establishes that the federal full faith and credit statute applies to federal takings claims. The Court itself recognized that its decision limits the availability of a federal forum for takings claims. In fact, however, claim preclusion doctrine-not considered or discussed by the Court-may result in more stringent limits on federal court review of takings claims than the Court's …