Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Compliance With Most Favored Customer Clauses: Giving Meaning To Ambiguous Terms While Avoiding False Claims Act Allegations, Mitchell S. Ettinger, James C. Altman
Compliance With Most Favored Customer Clauses: Giving Meaning To Ambiguous Terms While Avoiding False Claims Act Allegations, Mitchell S. Ettinger, James C. Altman
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
Federal and state contracting authorities more frequently are including Most Favored Customer (MFC) clauses in contracts for procurement of privately manufactured products. These clauses seek to ensure that the contracting authority (typically a federal or state agency) receives at least as favorable pricing as other customers making similar purchases. For example, the government agency may request that the contractor warrant that the prices it charges under the contract will be as favorable as those offered to other parties purchasing similar products of similar quantity under similar terms and conditions. In theory, the request to be treated equally to others making …
Mccutcheon V. Federal Election Commission, Stephen M. Degenaro
Mccutcheon V. Federal Election Commission, Stephen M. Degenaro
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission involved a challenge to limits imposed on the amount a donor may contribute during a single election cycle. In McCutcheon, the Court was presented with the question of whether the aggregate limits placed on contributions to candidate and noncandidate committees either lacked a cognizable constitutional interest or were unconstitutionally too low. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court held that the aggregate limits on campaign contributions burden substantial First Amendment rights without furthering a permissible government interest.
Lane V. Franks, Katie Jo Baumgardner
Lane V. Franks, Katie Jo Baumgardner
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the scope of public employee free speech with its decision in Lane v. Franks. The Court granted certiorari in order “to resolve discord among the Courts of Appeals as to whether public employees may be fired—or suffer other adverse employment consequences—for providing truthful subpoenaed testimony outside the course of their ordinary job responsibilities.” The unanimous Lane decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part an opinion by the Eleventh Circuit, held that the First Amendment protects a public employee from retaliatory employer discipline where the employee testifies at trial, pursuant …
Quasi-Rights For Quasi-Religious Organizations: A New Framework Resolving The Religious-Secular Dichotomy After Burwell V. Hobby Lobby, Krista M. Pikus
Quasi-Rights For Quasi-Religious Organizations: A New Framework Resolving The Religious-Secular Dichotomy After Burwell V. Hobby Lobby, Krista M. Pikus
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection
This Comment aims to break free of the limiting religious-secular dichotomy by proposing a “quasi-religious” classification in order to achieve a more nuanced assignment of corporate religious exercise rights. Part I addresses the current legal standard for classifying organizations as religious and how the Hobby Lobby decision engaged that standard. Part II identifies and discusses the problems with the religious-secular dichotomy. Lastly, Part III proposes a new solution to the problem of corporate religious exercise rights that transcends the limitations of the religious-secular dichotomy and may also bring clarity to the Hobby Lobby decision.