Law Commons^™

Constitutional Confidentiality, Natalie Ram, Jorge L. Contreras, Laura M. Beskow, Leslie E. Wolf

Washington and Lee Law Review

Federal Certificates of Confidentiality (“Certificates”) protect sensitive information about human research subjects from disclosure and use in judicial, administrative, and legislative proceedings at both the state and federal levels. When they were first authorized by Congress in the 1970s, Certificates covered sensitive information collected in research about drug addiction use. Today, however, they extend to virtually all personal information gathered by biomedical research studies. The broad reach of Certificates, coupled with their power to override state subpoenas and warrants issued in the context of law enforcement, abortion regulation, and other police powers typically under state control, beg the question whether …

Cosmetic Crisis: The Obsolete Regulatory Framework Of The Ever-Evolving Cosmetic Industry, Isabelle M. Carbajales

University of Miami Law Review

Cosmetics only first became regulated after a series of tragic events where users were seriously harmed from the use of cosmetic products. These tragic events prompted legislators to enact the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. Before then, law makers feared that regulating the cosmetic industry would lower the tone of legislation because they considered the cosmetic industry to be inconsequential. At present, the regulatory system in place to protect vulnerable cosmetic consumers is nearly identical to when it was enacted over eighty-six years ago—even though the cosmetic market looks nothing like it did back then. The consumer base …

Just-Right Government: Interstate Compacts And Multistate Governance In An Era Of Political Polarization, Policy Paralysis, And Bad-Faith Partisanship, Jon Michaels, Emme M. Tyler

Indiana Law Journal

Those committed to addressing the political, economic, and moral crises of the day— voting rights, racial justice, reproductive autonomy, gaping inequality, LGBTQ rights, and public health and safety—don’t know where to turn. Federal legislative and regulatory pathways are choked off by senators quick to filibuster and by judges eager to strike down agency rules and orders. State pathways, in turn, are compromised by limited capacity, collective action problems, externalities, scant economies of scale, and—in many jurisdictions—a toxic political culture hostile to even the most anodyne government interventions. Recognizing the limited options available on a binary (that is, federal or state) …

Exhuming Nondelegation . . . Intelligibly, Zachary R.S. Zajdel

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Whether by avalanche or a thousand cuts, the intelligible principle test may be awaiting its untimely demise at the behest of a reinvigorated nondelegation movement. Perhaps looking to speed up the decomposition, the Fifth Circuit in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission struck down the SEC’s discretion to pursue enforcement actions with its own Administrative Law Judges or in federal court as unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. This Note posits that Jarkesy was rightly decided but rife with uncompelling reasoning. Establishing this requires a detour into the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the significance of the separation of powers, …

Blacking Out Congressional Insider Trading: Overlaying A Corporate Mechanism Upon Members Of Congress And Their Staff To Curtail Illegal Profiting, Nicholas Gervasi

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Congressional insider trading involves members of Congress or their staff trading on material, nonpublic information attained while executing their official responsibilities. This type of private profit-making, while in a government role, casts doubt on the efficacy and impartiality of lawmakers to regulate companies they hold shares of. Egregious acts of illegal profiting from insider trading based on information entrusted to the government escape prosecution and liability due to fundamental gaps in the common law and the Congress specific statutes lack enforcement. Recent calls on Congress by the public and multiple bipartisan proposed bills in both chambers have begun to address …

The False Promise Of Jurisdiction Stripping, Daniel Epps, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdiction stripping is seen as a nuclear option. Its logic is simple: By depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over some set of cases, Congress ensures those courts cannot render bad decisions. To its proponents, it offers the ultimate check on unelected and unaccountable judges. To its critics, it poses a grave threat to the separation of powers. Both sides agree, though, that jurisdiction stripping is a powerful weapon. On this understanding, politicians, activists, and scholars throughout American history have proposed jurisdiction-stripping measures as a way for Congress to reclaim policymaking authority from the courts.

The conventional understanding is wrong. Whatever …

U.S. Trustee Fee Increase That Is Not Applicable Uniformly Violates The U.S. Constitution, Malorie Ruggeri

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution contains the “Bankruptcy Clause,” which vests Congress with the power to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The clause’s requirement that the bankruptcy laws be “uniform” is not a strictly construed requirement as Congress reserves the right to draft legislation depending on different regional issues that arise within the bankruptcy system.

Congress created the United States Trustee Program (USTP) to, among other things, oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases and promote the integrity and efficiency of bankruptcy system for the benefit of …