Law Commons^™

Flunking The Class-Of-One/Failing Equal Protection, William D. Araiza

William & Mary Law Review

This Article considers the equal protection “class-of-one” doctrine in light of recent developments, both at the Supreme Court and in the lower courts. After Part I explains the background and current state of the doctrine, Part II considers how that doctrine provides insights into such basic equal protection concepts as discriminatory intent and animus. It also critiques the Court’s analysis of the class-of-one, arguing that the Court has mishandled these concepts and in so doing caused doctrinal anomalies and lower court confusion. Part II offers an alternative approach to the class-of-one that corrects those problems while still addressing the concerns …

Oasis Or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst For Dictionaries In The Rehnquist And Roberts Eras, James J. Brudney, Lawrence Baum

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s use of dictionaries, virtually non-existent before 1987, has dramatically increased during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court eras to the point where as many as one-third of statutory decisions invoke dictionary definitions. The increase is linked to the rise of textualism and its intense focus on ordinary meaning. This Article explores the Court’s new dictionary culture in depth from empirical and doctrinal perspectives. We find that while textualist justices are heavy dictionary users, purposivist justices invoke dictionary definitions with comparable frequency. Further, dictionary use overall is strikingly ad hoc and subjective. We demonstrate how the Court’s patterns of …

Precedent Or Problem?: Alameda County's Diversion Problem Policy For Youth Charged With Prostitution And The Case For A Policy Of Immunity, Janet C. Sully

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cyber-Republicanism, Sarah Tran

William & Mary Law Review

In 1787 at the dawn of our nation, the Founding Fathers were embroiled in a raging debate over the role citizens and special interest groups should play in our political system. The Founding Fathers viewed influence from interest groups as a threat to government decision making, but they differed in their responses to this perceived problem. Proponents of republicanism, one of the dominant conceptions of politics at that time, adopted an optimistic approach. They anticipated that government leaders and citizens, guided by their education and civic virtue, would not allow factional tyranny to flourish. This republican optimism continues to markedly …

Rethinking Review Standards In Asylum, Andrew Tae-Hyun Kim

William & Mary Law Review

Factual findings drive asylum adjudication. If immigration judges get them wrong, they risk sending refugees back to persecution. Recent studies have exposed an immigration agency that is prone to inaccurate and ill-considered fact-finding due to its structural problems. Without the political will or the financial capital necessary to fix what many acknowledge as a compromised system of adjudication, the agency may continue to render decisions that cast doubt on its capability and expertise. With an agency either unable or unwilling to ensure an accurate and fair fact-finding process, the first meaningful review of an asylum applicant’s claim happens at the …

Tinker-Ing With Speech Categories: Solving The Off-Campus Student Speech Problem With A Categorical Approach And A Comprehensive Framework, Scott Dranoff

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Non-Redelegation Doctrine, F. Andrew Hesisck, Carissa Byrne Hessick

William & Mary Law Review

In United States v. Booker, the Court remedied a constitutional defect in the federal sentencing scheme by rendering advisory the then-binding sentencing guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. One important but overlooked consequence of this decision is that it redelegated the power to set sentencing policy from the Sentencing Commission to federal judges. District courts now may sentence based on their own policy views instead of being bound by the policy determinations rendered by the Commission.

This Article argues that, when faced with a decision that implicates an unambiguous delegation, the courts should not redelegate unless authorized by Congress …

Statutory Interpretation As Constestatory Democracy, Glen Staszewski

William & Mary Law Review

This Article provides a novel solution to the countermajoritarian difficulty in statutory interpretation by applying recent insights from civic republican theory to the adjudication of statutory disputes in the modern regulatory state. From a republican perspective, freedom consists of the absence of the potential for arbitrary domination, and democracy should therefore include both electoral and contestatory dimensions. The Article argues that statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state is best understood as a mechanism of contestatory democracy. It develops this conception of statutory interpretation by considering the distinct roles of legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts in making and implementing the …

The Federal Medical Loss Ratio: A Permissible Federal Regulation Or An Encroachment On State Power?, Meghan S. Stubblebine

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech, Defamation, And Injunctions, David S. Ardia

William & Mary Law Review

It has long been a fixture of Anglo-American law that defamation plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief; their remedies are solely monetary. Indeed, it has been repeated as a truism: “equity will not enjoin a libel.” This precept rests on one of the strongest presumptions in First Amendment jurisprudence: that injunctions against libel and other kinds of speech are unconstitutional prior restraints. But it may not be true, at least not anymore.

Over the past decade, the Internet has brought increased attention to the adequacy of the remedies available in defamation cases. Prior to the widespread availability of digital …

Trademark Morality, Mark Batholomew

William & Mary Law Review

This Article challenges the modern rationale for trademark rights. According to both judges and legal scholars, what matters in adjudicating trademark cases are the economic consequences, particularly for consumers, of a defendant’s use of a mark, not the use’s morality. Nevertheless, under this utilitarian facade, judicial assessments of highly charged questions of right and wrong are also at work. Recent findings in the field of moral psychology demonstrate the influence of particular moral triggers in all areas of human decision making, often without conscious awareness. These triggers influence judges deciding trademark disputes. A desire to punish bad actors, particularly those …

Avoiding Fcpa Suprises: Safe Harbor From Successor Liability In Cross-Border Mergers And Acquisitions, Adam Prestidge

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Secure Communities: Burdening Local Law Enforcement And Undermining The U Visa, Lindsey J. Gill

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision Making, David Klein, Neal Devins

William & Mary Law Review

The distinction between dictum and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dictum. Specifically, federal courts of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4000 cases. In this Essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul R. Gugliuzza

William & Mary Law Review

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court's power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court's federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

The Good Cop: Knowing The Difference Between Lawful Or Effective Policing And Rightful Policing — And Why It Matters, Tracey L. Meares

William & Mary Law Review

My Essay will proceed in four parts. First, I will lay out the two often-used metrics of police evaluation, lawfulness and crimefighting effectiveness. Next, I will explain the theoretical foundation underlying the third way, which is what I am calling rightful policing. In the third Section, I will present an overview of empirical work that I have done in collaboration with my colleague, Tom Tyler, and others. This work demonstrates that ordinary people care a great deal about the theoretical precepts underlying rightful policing. In the Essay’s last Section, I will conclude with some implications of both the theory and …

The Changing Guard Of Patent Law: Chevron Deference For The Pto, Melissa F. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review

Whereas Congress has increasingly turned to administrative agencies to regulate complex technical areas, the patent system has remarkably remained an outlier. In the patent arena, the judiciary— not a federal agency—is perceived to be the most important expositor of substantive patent law standards. Yet, as the criticism toward the patent system has grown, so too have the challenges to this unusual power dynamic. The calls for institutional reform culminated in late 2011 with the enactment of the historic Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Although scholars have recognized that the AIA bestows a glut of new powers upon the United States …

The Cost Of Securities Fraud, Urska Velikonja

William & Mary Law Review

Under the dominant account, fraudulent financial reporting by public firms harms the firms' shareholders and, more generally, capital markets. This Article contends that the account is incomplete. In addition to undermining investor confidence, misreporting distorts economic decision making by all firms, both those committing fraud and those not. False information impairs risk assessment by those who provide human or financial capital to fraudulent firms, the firms' suppliers and customers, and thus misdirects capital and labor to subpar projects. Efforts to hide fraud and avoid detection further distort fraudulent firms' business decisions, as well as decisions by their rivals, who mimic …

Contracting For Performance: Restructuring The Private Prison Market, Peter H. Kyle

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speech, Intent, And The Chilling Effect, Leslie Kendrick

William & Mary Law Review

Speaker’s intent requirements are a common but unremarked feature of First Amendment law. From the “actual malice” standard for defamation to the specific-intent requirement for incitement, many types of expression are protected or unprotected depending on the state of mind with which they are said. To the extent that courts and commentators have considered why speaker’s intent should determine First Amendment protection, they have relied upon the chilling effect. On this view, imposing strict liability for harmful speech, such as defamatory statements, would overdeter, or chill, valuable speech, such as true political information. Intent requirements are necessary prophylactically to provide …

Privacy And Consent Over Time: The Role Of Agreement In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Christine Jolls

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Parens Patriae: A Flawed Strategy For State-Initiated Obesity Litigation, John B. Hoke

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Charities In Politics: A Reappraisal, Brian Galle

William & Mary Law Review

Federal law significantly limits the political activities of charities, but no one really knows why. In the wake of Citizens United, the absence of any strong normative grounding for the limits may leave the rules vulnerable to constitutional challenge. This Article steps into that breach, offering a set of policy reasons to separate politics from charity. I also sketch ways in which my more precise exposition of the rationale for the limits helps guide interpretation of the complex legal rules implementing them.

Any defense of the political limits begins with significant challenges because of a long tradition of scholarly criticism …

Who's Your Daddy? Defining Paternity Rights In The Context Of Free, Private Sperm Donation, Lauren Gill

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Legal Globalization: The Case Of Transnational Personal Jurisdiction, Donald Earl Childress Iii

William & Mary Law Review

Under what circumstances may a United States court exercise personal jurisdiction over alien defendants? Courts and commentators have yet to offer a coherent response to this question. That is surprising given that scholars have been calling for the globalization of U.S. law since the late 1980s as part of a transnational litigation narrative.

Through doctrinal and empirical analysis, this Article argues that a U.S. court should have power to exercise personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant not served with process within a state’s borders when (1) the defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice, (2) the state has a constitutionally sufficient …

Congressional Silence And The Statutory Interpretation Game, Paul Stancil

William & Mary Law Review

This Article explores the circumstances under which the federal legislative apparatus may be unable to respond to a politically objectionable statutory interpretation from the Supreme Court. The Article builds upon existing economic models of statutory interpretation, incorporating transaction costs into the analysis for the first time. The Article concludes by identifying recent real-world disputes in which transaction costs likely constrained Congress and the President from overriding the Court.

Copyright Essentialism And The Performativity Of Remedies, Andrew Gilden

William & Mary Law Review

This Article critically examines the interrelationship between substantive copyright protections and the remedies available for infringement. Drawing from constitutional remedies scholarship and poststructural theories of performativity, it argues that a court’s awareness of the likely remedy award in a particular dispute —combined with its normative view of how future actors should address similar disputes—“reaches back” and shapes the determination of the parties’ respective rights.

Copyright scholars have long sought to limit the availability of injunctive relief, and several recent court decisions have adopted this reform. For example, in Salinger v. Colting the Second Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against a …

Nonmarket Values In Family Businesses, Benjamin Means

William & Mary Law Review

Despite the economic importance of family businesses, legal scholarship has often overlooked their distinctive character. Instead, scholars focus on the chosen form of business organization— partnership, corporation, LLC—and assume that the participants are economically rational actors who seek to maximize their individual preferences. This Article contends that family businesses are extensions of family relationships and that nonmarket values affect their goals and governance choices.

Just as family law scholars have shown that contract principles can be applied to regulate intimate relationships, corporate law scholars should recognize that the intimacy of family life often substitutes for arm’s length bargaining in family …

The States Of Immigration, Rick Su

William & Mary Law Review

Immigration is a national issue and a federal responsibility. So why are states so actively involved? Their legal authority over immigration is questionable. Their institutional capacity to regulate it is limited. Even the legal actions that states take sometimes seem pointless from a regulatory perspective. Why do they enact legislation that essentially copies existing federal law? Why do they pursue regulations that courts are likely to enjoin or strike down? Why do they give so little priority to the immigration laws that do survive?

This Article sheds light on this seemingly irrational behavior. It argues that state laws are being …

The Use Of Gender Quotas In America: Are Voluntary Party Quotas The Way To Go?, Anisa A. Somani

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.