Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
After All These Years, Lochner Was Not Crazy—It Was Good, Randy E. Barnett
After All These Years, Lochner Was Not Crazy—It Was Good, Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
For this year’s Rosenkranz Debate, we have been asked to debate the question: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years? It is my job to defend the “negative” position. My burden is not to establish that Lochner was correctly decided, but merely that it was not “crazy.” I intend to meet that burden and exceed it. I intend to show how Lochner v. New York was not at all crazy; in fact, it was a reasonable and good decision.
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan
U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Murr. V. Wisconsin: Identifying The Proper "Parcel As A Whole" In Regulatory Takings Cases, Bruce I. Kogan
Law Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Wrongful Convictions, Constitutional Remedies, And Nelson V. Colorado, Michael Wells
Wrongful Convictions, Constitutional Remedies, And Nelson V. Colorado, Michael Wells
Scholarly Works
This article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s Nelson v. Colorado opinion, in which the Court addressed the novel issue of remedies for persons wrongly convicted of crimes. Governments routinely deprive criminal defendants of both liberty and property upon conviction, and do so before giving them a chance to appeal their convictions and sentences. When a conviction is overturned, the state typically refunds fines and most other monetary exactions but seldom compensates for the loss of liberty. In Nelson, the Supreme Court addressed an unusual case in which the state did not return the money and that refusal was approved (purportedly …
Appointments And Illegal Adjudication: The Aia Through A Constitutional Lens, Gary S. Lawson
Appointments And Illegal Adjudication: The Aia Through A Constitutional Lens, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act (“AIA”), largely in order to provide more effective mechanisms for invalidating, or cancelling, already-issued patents. The statute provides for inter partes review, in which patents, on the request of third parties, can be cancelled by an administrative body, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), subject to deferential judicial review. The constitutionality of this scheme is currently (as of January 9, 2018) before the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, but the arguments in that case understandably focus on the consistency of inter partes review …