Law Commons^™

Securitizing Audit Failure Risk: An Alternative To Caps On Damages, Lawrence A. Cunningham

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Empire Of Illness: Competence And Coercion In Health-Care Decision Making, Marsha Garrison

William & Mary Law Review

The law's willingness to take account of factors that interfere with volition tends to vary in accordance with its underlying goals. The law of wills is dominated by the principle of freedom of testation; it has thus developed doctrines aimed at detecting coercive influences that interfere with the testator's free agency. The law of medical decision making, dominated by the analogous principle of patient autonomy, has not developed doctrines aimed at detecting coercive influences despite a large and growing body of evidence showing that disordered insight and major depression, two common medical conditions, often have a coercive, negative effect on …

The Common Law Genius Of The Warren Court, David A. Strauss

William & Mary Law Review

The Warren Court's most important decisions-on school segregation, reapportionment, free speech, and criminal procedure are firmly entrenched in the law. But the idea persists, even among those who are sympathetic to the results that the Warren Court reached, that what the Warren Court was doing was somehow not really law: that the Warren Court "made it up," and that the important Warren Court decisions cannot be justified by reference to conventional legal materials. It is true that the Warren Court's most important decisions cannot be easily justified on the basis of the text of the Constitution or the original understandings. …

Drawing Idea From Expression: Creating A Legal Space For Culturally Appropriated Literary Characters, Jacqueline Lai Chung

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Betting On The Wrong Horse: The Detrimental Effect Of Noncompliance In The Internet Gambling Dispute On The General Agreement On Trade In Services (Gats), Kathryn B. Codd

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Child Welfare's Paradox, Dorothy E. Roberts

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Estop In The Name Of Love: A Case For Constructive Marriage In Virginia, Andrew W. Scott

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sense-Enhanced Searches And The Irrelevance Of The Fourth Amendment, David E. Steinberg

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Interpreting The Fourteenth Amendment: Two Don'ts And Three Dos, Garrett Epps

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

A sophisticated reading of the legislative record of the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment can provide courts and scholars with some general interpretive principles to guide their application of the Amendment to current legal problems. The author argues that two common legal conceptions about the Amendment are, in fact, misconceptions. The first is that the Amendment was chiefly concerned with the immediate situation of freed slaves in the former slave states. Instead, he argues, the legislative record suggests that the framers were broadly concerned with the rights not only of freed slaves but also of foreign-born immigrants in the North …

Be They Fish Or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration Of Nonsexual Offenders, Ofer Raban

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Congress Has The Power To Enforce The Bill Of Rigths Against The Federal Government; Therefore Fisa Is Constitutional And The President's Terrorist Surveillance Program Is Illegal, Wilson R. Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The principal point of this Article is that Congress has plenary authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the federal government. Although this precept is a fundamental one, neither the Supreme Court nor legal scholars have articulated this point in clear, simple, and direct terms. The Supreme Court does not have a monopoly on the Bill of Rights. Congress, too, has constitutional authority to interpret our rights and to enforce or enlarge them as against the actions of the federal government. Congress exercised its power to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence …

Family Law Federalism: Divorce And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

American divorce law was transformed by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions beginning with Williams v. North Carolina in 1942. These constitutional full faith and credit cases resolved a long-standing federalism problem by redefining the scope of state power over marital status. With these decisions, the Court shifted from an analysis based on the competing interests of different states to an approach that highlighted the individual interests of the parties involved. This change fundamentally altered state power over the family by extending to individuals greater control of their marital status. In the process, the Court cleared a path …

Congressional Criminality And Balance Of Powers: Are Internal Filter Teams Really What Our Forefathers Envisioned?, Emily E. Eineman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Garcetti V. Ceballos: Stifling The First Amendment In The Public Workplace, Julie A. Wenell

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Bias On The Bench: Raising The Bar For U.S. Immigration Judges To Ensure Equality For Asylum Seekers, Lindsey R. Vaala

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keep Out Of Myspace!: Protecting Students From Unconstitutional Suspensions And Expulsions, Christi Cassel

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Curious Complications With Back-End Opt-Out Rights, Rhonda Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review

In recent years, class members have been afforded delayed, or "back-end," opportunities to opt out of a class action once the terms of the settlement are disclosed. These back-end opt-out rights may afford only limited rights to sue outside the confines of the class action. For example, opt-out plaintiffs may be permitted to seek compensatory, but not punitive damages. Does the federal court that approved the settlement have authority to enjoin back-end opt-out plaintiffs from seeking relief in state court that exceeds the limits built into the back-end opt-out right?

Three sets of curious complications may arise if the federal …

The Preemployment Ethical Role Of Lawyers: Are Lawyers Really Fiduciaries?, Fred C. Zacharias

William & Mary Law Review

This Article considers the nature and extent of lawyers' obligations to prospective clients. Most jurisdictions have rules forbidding certain kinds of representation, requiring that particular information be given clients in writing, and regulating fees. Professional code drafters, courts, and commentators, however, have never addressed the broader issue of the lawyer's role at the retainer stage of representation, including whether lawyers have responsibility for providing prospective clients with candid advice regarding the course they should pursue.

The issue is important to clients. A lawyer's action may determine whether a client obtains any representation, competent representation, or a lawyer well suited to …

The Price Of Misdemeanor Representation, Erica J. Hashimoto

William & Mary Law Review

Nobody disputes either the reality of excessive caseloads in indigent defense systems or their negative effects. More than forty years after Gideon v. Wainwright, however, few seem willing to accept that additional resources will not magically appear to solve the problem. Rather, concerned observers demand more funds while state and local legislators resist those entreaties in the face of political resistance and pressures to balance government budgets. Recognizing that indigent defense systems must operate in a world of limited resources, states should reduce the number of cases streaming into those systems by significantly curtailing the appointment of counsel in low-level …

Contributory Disparate Impacts In Employment Discrimination Law, Peter Siegelman

William & Mary Law Review

An employer who adopts a facially neutral employment practice that disqualifies a larger proportion of protected-class applicants than others is liable under a disparate impact theory. Defendants can escape liability if they show that the practice is justified by business necessity. But demonstrating business necessity requires costly validation studies that themselves impose a significant burden on defendants-upwards of $100,000 according to some estimates. This Article argues that an employer should have a defense against disparate impact liability if it can show that protected-class applicants failed to make reasonable efforts to train or prepare for a job related test. That is, …

"You Fall Into Scylla In Seeking To Avoid Charybdis": The Second Circuit's Pragmatic Approach To Supervised Release For Sex Offenders, Frank E. Correll Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Signing Statements And Divided Government, Neal Devins

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Second Class Citizen Soldiers: A Proposal For Greater First Amendment Protections For America's Military Personnel, Emily Reuter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Unfulfilled Expectations: An Empirical Analysis Of Why Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers Rarely Win, Richard E. Moberly

William & Mary Law Review

Scholars praise the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 as one of the most protective anti-retaliation provisions in the world. Yet, during its first three years, only 3.6% of Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers won relief through the initial administrative process that adjudicates such claims, and only 6.5% of whistleblowers won appeals through the process. This Article reports the results of an empirical study of all Department of Labor Sarbanes-Oxley determinations during this time, consisting of over 700 separate decisions from administrative investigations and hearings. The results of this detailed analysis demonstrate that administrative decision makers strictly construed, and in …

The Mythic 43 Million Americans With Disabilities, Ruth Colker

William & Mary Law Review

Although Congress stated in its first statutory finding that it intended the Americans with DisabilitiesA ct (ADA) to protect at least 43 million Americans from disability discrimination, the Supreme Court has interpreted this statute so that it covers no more than 13.5 million Americans. More importantly, this Article demonstrates through the use of Census Bureau data that the ADA's employment discrimination provisions have been eviscerated to the point that the ADA protects virtually no Americans who are both disabled and able to work. This Article places that problem in the larger context of the Court undermining Congress's efforts to protect …

Sentencing Acquitted Conduct To The Post-Booker Dustbin, James J. Bilsborrow

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why The President Must Veto Unconstitutional Bills, Saikrishna B. Prakash

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutionality Of "Signing And Not-Enforcing", Michael B. Rappaport

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Presidential Signing Statements Controversy, Ronald A. Cass, Peter L. Strauss

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: The Last Word? The Constitutional Implications Of Presidential Signing Statements, Charlie Savage

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.