Law Commons^™

Appendix: Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowman Williams

William & Mary Law Review Online

Appendix to article in William & Mary Law Review vol. 63, no. 2 (2021), "Board Gender Diversity: A Path to Achieving Substantive Equality in the United States" by Kimberly A. Houser and Jamillah Bowen Williams.

Board Gender Diversity: A Path To Achieving Substantive Equality In The United States, Kimberly A. Houser, Jamillah Bowen Williams

William & Mary Law Review

While the European Union (EU) was founded on the concept of equality as a fundamental value in 1993, the United States was created at a time when women were considered legally inferior to men. This has had the lasting effect of preventing women in the United States from making inroads into positions of power. While legislated board gender diversity (BGD) mandates have been instituted in some EU countries, the United States has been loath to take that route, relying instead on the goodwill of corporate boards, with little progress. On September 30, 2018, however, California enacted a law that has …

Bird-Safe Buildings Act: Ready To Take Flight, Kerry Sean Cooney

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Publications

Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any "person" who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "person" excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.

This Article reconsiders that conclusion--in legalese, Section 1983's nonabrogation of sovereign immunity--along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983's enactment, the caselaw …

The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review Online

Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …