Law Commons^™

A Tale Of Two Sovereigns: Federal And State Use And Regulation Of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite claims to the contrary, the federal government is severely limited in what it can do to regulate unmanned aircraft systems (UASs). States, on the other hand, as governments of general jurisdiction, have expansive powers that they are already using to grapple with the questions posed by UAS related to privacy, crime, and public safety. This chapter outlines the evolution of federal measures, noting their limitations, before delving into three categories of state law, related to law enforcement, criminal measures, and regulatory regimes. The chapter then turns to the history of state sovereignty, looking at states’ jurisdiction over persons and …

[Un]Happy Together: Why The Supremacy Clause Preempts State Law Digital Performance Rights In Radio-Like Streaming Of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, Julie L. Ross

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Lovers of the music of Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Etta James, and hundreds of other recording artists whose records were made before February 15, 1972, may soon have a hard time hearing these great artists on any satellite or Internet radio service. Recently, two federal district courts have found that state laws were violated when satellite radio broadcaster Sirius XM Radio included pre-1972 sound recordings in its broadcasts without the owners’ permission, but these courts did not consider-–and the parties did not argue-–how the Supremacy Clause applies to those state law claims. This article argues that state laws purporting to …

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. V. Bartlett And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman, Anne King

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The authors state that the U.S. Supreme Court’s preemption ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, which generally shields generic drug manufacturers from state-law damages liability for design-defect claims, may also have broader implications for preemption jurisprudence. In this article they describe the Supreme Court’s decision in Mutual and evaluate how it may affect future products-liability litigation.

Part I provides an overview of the case’s factual background and of federal generic drug regulation, while Part II discusses the Court’s majority opinion and the dissents. Part III analyzes the implications of the decision, offering ideas on how plaintiffs injured by …

Wyeth V. Levine And Its Implications, Brian Wolfman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine sharply limited the availability of implied preemption as a defense in pharmaceutical cases. In this Analysis & Perspective, attorney Brian Wolfman discusses the decision and its implications for prescription drug litigation as well as litigation in other areas that are regulated by the federal government.

After Wyeth, Wolfman says, a defendant in a prescription drug case must demonstrate a ‘‘tight fit between the labeling change proposed by the manufacturer (and rejected by the FDA) and the labeling change that the plaintiff contends would have prevented her injuries.’’ Moreover, he says, …

The Separation Of Powers As A Safeguard Of Nationalism, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The separation of powers does not necessarily protect the states from having their law displaced by the federal government. Sometimes it does the opposite – it operates to perpetuate the existence of federal laws displacing state law. In such circumstances, the separation of powers is an obstacle to the devolution of legislative authority to the states. Consider the requirements of bicameralism and presentment. Bradford Clark is correct to note that the procedural requirements specified in the Constitution for federal law-making were designed to give a large voice to the states. At the beginning of our history, when the only laws …

Preemption & Human Rights: Local Options After Crosby V. Nftc, Robert Stumberg

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In June 2000, the Supreme Court held in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) that federal sanctions against Burma preempted the Massachusetts Burma law. With its "Burma Law," Massachusetts sought to replicate the anti-Apartheid boycott, one of the most successful human rights campaigns in history. Massachusetts' Burma law authorized state agencies to exercise a strong purchasing preference in favor of companies that do not conduct business in Burma unless the preference would impair essential purchases or result in inadequate competition.

In Crosby, the Court held that Congress preempted the Massachusetts Burma law when it adopted federal sanctions on …