Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Torts (3)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Antitrust Law (2)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Horizontal Antitrust Restraints (2)
-
- National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (468 U.S. 85 (1984)) (2)
- Restraint of Trade (2)
- Rule of Reason (2)
- Sherman Act (2)
- State Action (Civil Rights) (2)
- Antitrust Law Exemptions (1)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (403 U.S. 388 (1971)) (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1983) (1)
- College Sports (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Economics & Antitrust Law (1)
- Federal Common Law (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Government Liability (1)
- Judge-Made Law (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Police Brutality (1)
- Qualified Immunity of Public Officers (1)
- Sovereign Immunity (1)
- Sports Law (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- United States Constitution 14th Amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker
The Supreme Court's Reticent Qualified Immunity Retreat, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Publications
The recent outcry against qualified immunity, a doctrine that disallows damages actions against government officials for a wide swath of constitutional claims, has been deafening. But when the Supreme Court in November 2020 and February 2021 invalidated grants of qualified immunity based on reasoning at the heart of the doctrine for the first time since John Roberts became Chief Justice, the response was muted. With initial evaluations and competing understandings coming from legal commentators in the months since, this Essay explores what these cases appear to say about qualified immunity for today and tomorrow.
The Essay traces idealistic, pessimistic, and …
Will The Supreme Court Recover Its Own Fumble? How Alston Can Repair The Damage Resulting From Ncaa's Sports League Exemption, Alan J. Meese
Will The Supreme Court Recover Its Own Fumble? How Alston Can Repair The Damage Resulting From Ncaa's Sports League Exemption, Alan J. Meese
Faculty Publications
Horizontal restraints are unlawful per se unless a court can identify some redeeming virtue that such restraints may create. In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (“NCAA”), the Supreme Court rejected this standard, refusing to condemn horizontal restraints on price and output imposed by the NCAA without specifying any possible redeeming virtues. The Court emphasized that other restraints not before the Court were necessary to create and maintain athletic competition like that supervised by the NCAA. This exemption for sports leagues ensures that all restraints imposed by such entities merit Rule …
A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine Mims Crocker
A Scapegoat Theory Of Bivens, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Publications
Some scapegoats are innocent. Some warrant blame, but not the amount they are made to bear. Either way, scapegoating can allow in-groups to sidestep social problems by casting blame onto out-groups instead of confronting such problems--and the in-groups' complicity in perpetuating them--directly.
This Essay suggests that it may be productive to view the Bivens regime's rise as countering various exercises in scapegoating and its retrenchment as constituting an exercise in scapegoating. The earlier cases can be seen as responding to social structures that have scapegoated racial, economic, and other groups through overaggressive policing, mass incarceration, and inequitable government conduct more …
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Reconsidering Section 1983'S Nonabrogation Of Sovereign Immunity, Katherine Mims Crocker
Faculty Publications
Motivated by civil unrest and the police conduct that prompted it, Americans have embarked on a major reexamination of how constitutional enforcement works. One important component is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil suits against any "person" who violates federal rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "person" excludes states because Section 1983 flunks a condition of crystal clarity.
This Article reconsiders that conclusion--in legalese, Section 1983's nonabrogation of sovereign immunity--along multiple dimensions. Beginning with a negative critique, this Article argues that because the Court invented the crystal-clarity standard so long after Section 1983's enactment, the caselaw …
Requiem For A Lightweight: How Ncaa Continues To Distort Antitrust Doctrine, Alan J. Meese
Requiem For A Lightweight: How Ncaa Continues To Distort Antitrust Doctrine, Alan J. Meese
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court speaks rarely about the meaning of the Sherman Act. When the Court does speak, its pronouncements have particular resonance and staying power among jurists, scholars, and enforcers. NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma was such a case. There the Court assessed agreements reducing the output and increasing the prices of televised college football games. After announcing that restraints imposed by sports leagues are exempt from per se condemnation, the Court went on to invalidate the challenged agreements under the rule of reason because they produced significant economic harm without offsetting benefits. In so …