Law Commons^™

The Imperial Sovereign: Sovereign Immunity & The Ada, Judith Olans Brown, Wendy E. Parmet

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Professors Brown and Parmet examine the impact of the Supreme Court's resurrection of state sovereign immunity on the rights of individuals protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act in light of the recent decision, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. Placing Garrett within the context of the Rehnquist Court's evolving reallocation of state and federal authority, they argue that the Court has relied upon a mythic and dangerous notion of sovereignty that is foreign to the Framers' understanding. Brown and Parmet go on to show that, by determining that federalism compels constraining congressional power to …

Presidential Review As Constitutional Restoration, John O. Mcginnis

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How The Spending Clause Can Solve The Dilemma Of State Sovereign Immunity From Intellectual Property Suits, Jennifer Cotner

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Republican Constitution Of 1963: The Supreme Court And Federalism In Nigeria, Akin Alao

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Causes Of The Recent Turn In Constitutional Interpretation, Christopher H. Schroeder

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Localist Critique Of The New Federalism, David J. Barron

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tripping On The Threshold: Federal Courts’ Failure To Observe Controlling State Law Under The Federal Arbitration Act, Charles Davant Iv

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Narratives Of Federalism: Of Continuities And Comparative Constitutional Experience, Vicki C. Jackson

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Taking What They Give Us: Explaining The Court’S Federalism Offensive, Keith E. Whittington

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Federalism And The Double Standard Of Judicial Review, Lynn A. Baker, Ernest A. Young

Duke Law Journal

From 1937 to 1995, federalism was part of a “Constitution in exile.” Except for the brief interlude of the National League of Cities doctrine2—which, like Napoleon’s ill-fated return from Elba, met with crushing defeat3—the post–New Deal Supreme Court has been almost completely unwilling to enforce constitutional limits on national power vis-à-vis the states. The reason, by all accounts, has much to do with federalism’s historic link to other aspects of our expatriate constitution—e.g., economic substantive due process, legislative nondelegation— which were banished for their collusion against the New Deal.

Adjudication And The Problems Of Incommensurability, Brett G. Scharffs

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Family Medical Leave Act: State Sovereignty And The Narrowing Of Fourteenth Amendment Protection, Stephanie C. Bovee

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Enforcing The Endangered Species Act Against The States, Jean O. Melious

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

The Failure Of Public Company Bankruptcies In Delaware And New York: Empirical Evidence Of A "Race To The Bottom", Lynn M. Lopucki, Sara D. Kalin

Vanderbilt Law Review

Commentators sometimes recognize Delaware's preeminence in corporate law, but they almost invariably treat Delaware's recent popularity as a bankruptcy venue choice as raising entirely different issues. In fact, the two are integrally related. Specifically, just as the efforts of Delaware and other states to attract corporations--a process often referred to as "charter competition'-has induced Delaware to regulate corporate law in a generally efficient manner, the same forces will have a beneficial effect on Delaware's bankruptcy judges

. -Professor David Skeet'

Massachusetts, Burma And The World Trade Organization: A Commentary On Blacklisting, Federalism, And Internet Advocacy In The Global Trading Era, Peter L. Fitzgerald

Cornell International Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pressure From Abroad Against Use Of Capital Punishment In The United States, John Quigley

ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law

Foreign pressure on the United States on the capital punishment issue continues to build.

A Brave New Lochner Era? The Constitutionality Of Nafta Chapter 11, Steve Louthan

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In the eight years since its adoption, NAFTA Chapter 11 has escaped significant scrutiny from academics and journalists alike. However, with the recent filing of several Chapter 11 expropriation claims involving U.S. states, Chapter 11 has begun to gain some notoriety in the press and sparked at least two legal symposia this past year.

This Note begins by highlighting the recent Methanex Chapter 11 claim involving the State of California. Methanex, a Canadian chemical manufacturer and importer, claimed $1.6 billion in damages over California's ban of the chemical MTBE. Despite the EPA'S classification of MTBE as a possible carcinogen and …

Fair Labor Standards Act And Sovereign Immunity: Unlocking The Courthouse Door For Texas State Employees., Melinda Herrera

St. Mary's Law Journal

Unless Texas expressly waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, its state employees will not have similar legal recourse and protection as those available to private employees. As in many other states, a party may not sue the State of Texas without its consent. Thus, in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, a state may claim sovereign immunity against any suit brought by a private party in both federal and state court. As a result, the Eleventh Amendment effectively precludes private individuals from suing a state in both federal and state court for violating a federal statute …

Overcoming Managed Care Regulatory Chaos Through A Restructured Federalism, John D. Blum

Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-Medicine

No abstract provided.

Sorting Out Federal And State Judicial Roles In State Insitutional Reform: Abstention's Potential Role, Charles R. Wise, Robert K. Christensen

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court has given federal courts the authority to abstain from hearing certain cases and defer to state courts in some cases where constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated. This piece attempts to clarify the abstention requirements and provide a clear rationale for the doctrine. Part I of this piece discusses the origin and development of the abstention doctrine, focusing specifically on the Burford abstention, a kind of abstention particularly salient to institutional reform cases. Part I also illustrates the inconsistencies inherent in the application of the abstention doctrine in its current form. Parts II and …