Law Commons^™

Chiarella V. United States And Its Indelible Impact On Insider Trading Law, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Insider trading cases, which are typically prosecuted as securities fraud, carry a mystique rarely present in securities litigation. As a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York once observed, the cases involve "'basically cops and robbers. . . .[d]id you get the information and did you trade on it?" It is no wonder that each insider trading case featured in this symposium presents a captivating story. But for two distinct reasons, Chiarella v. United States occupies a special place in history. It was the first prosecution under the federal securities laws for the crime of insider trading. …

Communication Breakdown: How Courts Do - And Don't - Respond To Statutory Overrides, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Earlier commentators, including many well-respected judges, have offered thoughtful suggestions for facilitating communication from courts to Congress about problems in statutes that Congress might want to address. My research explores the opposite question. How effective is communication from Congress back to courts? The answer is: Not very. Even when Congress enacts overrides, courts frequently continue to follow the prior judicial precedent. This is likely due more to information failure than willful disregard of controlling law. Nonetheless, a key aspect of the separation of powers is broken.

My research shows that when the Supreme Court overrules a prior decision, lower courts …

Circumventing Standing To Appeal, Ryan W. Scott

Articles by Maurer Faculty

The requirement of standing to sue in federal court is familiar, but the related requirement of standing to appeal within the Article III judiciary is badly undertheorized. The Supreme Court’s opinions suggest (at least) four constitutional rationales. Standing to appeal might serve the same functional purposes as standing to sue, or it might follow from the fact that appeals involve two separate courts, or it might be triggered because the underlying case or controversy has become moot, or because it has reached the point of final judgment.

Compounding the confusion, the requirement of standing to appeal can have troubling consequences …