Law Commons^™

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Alito Versus Roe V. Wade: Dobbs As A Means Of Circumvention, Avoidance, Attenuation And Betrayal Of The Constitution, Antony Hilton

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

There can be no argument that Justice Alito is a learned justice of great knowledge and reason, and has a superb grasp of the law. As such, despite any opposition to or disagreement with his legal opinions, he is deserving of respect for his intellectual prowess, in general and as it relates to the Constitution. Notwithstanding all the aforementioned, wrong is wrong.

Is There A Fundamental Right To Privacy When An Educational Institution Requires A Student To Disclose Proof Of His Or Her Vaccination Status?, Mary D. Fatscher

Touro Law Review

In 2020, the coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) dominated the world. Although the public has progressively become more informed about the disease and how to safeguard itself, challenges persist as there is still much unknown. Aside from wearing masks, social distancing, and despite its undetermined consequences, the COVID-19 vaccination has emerged as a primary solution to substantially reducing the incidence and severity of the virus in our country. Many COVID-19 vaccine mandates were initiated once three pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies including Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

The Aoc In The Age Of Covid—Pandemic Preparedness Planning In The Federal Courts, Zoe Niesel

St. Mary's Law Journal

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis for American society—and the federal courts were not exempt. Court facilities came to a grinding halt, cases were postponed, and judiciary employees adopted work-from-home practices. Having court operations impacted by a pandemic was not a new phenomenon, but the size, scope, and technological lift of the COVID-19 pandemic was certainly unique.

Against this background, this Article examines the history and future of pandemic preparedness planning in the federal court system and seeks to capture some of the lessons learned from initial federal court transitions to pandemic operations in 2020. The Article begins by …

Access To Court Cases From The Supreme Court’S 2020–2021 Term: The New Majority’S Debut, Sarah Somers, Jane Perkins, Abigail Coursolle, Sarah Grusin

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Throughout the Supreme Court’s first term without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court issued only a few major opinions with respect to access to the Court for civil litigants, and it issued none that discarded major precedents. Yet, in several areas, the Court demonstrated an increasingly conservative bent and began to lay the groundwork for major changes. In this Article, we discuss selected opinions from the Court’s 2020–2021 term that may have an impact on access to the courts for individuals seeking to vindicate civil and constitutional rights. In particular, it focuses on cases that may affect access for low-income …

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

Stretching Armstrong: How The Eighth Circuit Incorrectly Applied Supreme Court Precedent In Does V. Gillespie, Lauren E. Pair

Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy

Medicaid serves as an important source of health insurance for millions of Americans. One of the Act’s core tenants is the patient’s freedom to choose from any qualified and willing provider. This “freedom of choice” provision was eventually codified, and subsequent protections were put in place to protect a patient’s choice regarding family planning services. However, as states attempt to limit access to family planning services by severing their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, patients must rely on § 1983 to pursue relief in federal courts. Section 1983 provides a right of action for the violation of any federal right …

The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …

Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker

Pepperdine Law Review

In our contribution to this symposium on King v. Burwell, we explore two aspects of the Chief Justice’s opinion where it is hard to ignore the fingerprints of a tax lawyer. First, in the Chief’s approach to statutory interpretation one sees a tax lawyer as interpreter with an approach that tracks tax law’s substance-over-form doctrine. Second, as to King’s sweeping administrative law holding, the Chief crafts a new major questions doctrine that could significantly cut back on federal agency lawmaking authority. Yet he seems to develop this doctrine against the backdrop of tax exceptionalism, and thus this development may have …

The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson

Pepperdine Law Review

Chevron is receding in tax, not because of any resurgence of tax exceptionalism but because it is receding everywhere. The case will continue to be cited by courts and masticated by commentators, but the unresolved – indeed worsening — conceptual, definitional, and practical incongruities of its doctrine rob it of operational force. King, which the Supreme Court conspicuously chose to resolve without “help” from Chevron, is another mile-marker on Chevron’s downward road. This article maps that road.

King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill

Pepperdine Law Review

In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court did not rely on Chevron to hold valid tax regulations allowing tax credits for taxpayers who enroll in an insurance plan through a federal rather than a state exchange. It instead concluded, relying in good measure on Brown and Williamson, that Congress had not delegated the question at issue to the IRS. It thus introduced a so-called Chevron Step 0. This essay reviews the Tax Court’s use of Chevron and Brown & Williamson to conclude that the Tax Court may well make use of King v. Burwell to review and reject tax regulations …

Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage

Pepperdine Law Review

As an introduction to the Symposium, this invited response essay reviews the pieces submitted for the Pepperdine Law Review symposium on the King v. Burwell case. The thrust of this essay’s response commentary is to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. Ultimately, this essay suggests that what may have motivated the Supreme Court to develop and apply its new “deep economic and political significance” test in this this case …

King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack

Journal of Legislation

The article outlines the construct of the ACA’s premium assistance tax credits, explores the legal controversies surrounding these subsidies, uses the tax subsidies cases to demonstrate the flaws in the Chevron framework, and argues that the Supreme Court should have framed its King v. Burwell analysis in a way that would have cured, rather than ignored, the ails of Chevron.

Diy Solutions To The Hobby Lobby Problem, Kristin Haule

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Congress Practices Medicine: How Congressional Legislation Of Medical Judgment May Infringe A Fundamental Right, Shannon L. Pedersen

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Policy Against Federal Funding For Abortions Extends Into The Realm Of Free Speech After Rust V. Sullivan, Loye M. Barton

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bayer Schering Pharma Ag V. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Joshua Zarabi

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Primer On Batson, Including Discussion Of Johnson V. California, Miller-El V. Dretke, Rice V. Collins, & Synder V. Louisiana., Mikal C. Watts, Emily C. Jeffcott

St. Mary's Law Journal

Fundamental to the existence of the rights guaranteed to every citizen is the assurance that the right to equal protection under the law will be defended at all costs. Key to the United States’ system of adjudication is the right to a trial by jury, which is embodied in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution. These rights are also incorporated into all state constitutions through the Fourteenth Amendment. During jury selection, the judicial system permits the elimination of a certain number of jurors without cause. This form of elimination is known as a peremptory challenge. Over time, however, …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

Rehnquist, Innsbruck, And St. Mary's University Tribute., Vincent R. Johnson

St. Mary's Law Journal

William H. Rehnquist taught for St. Mary’s University School of Law for four summers while serving as the sixteenth Chief Justice of the United States. For two weeks each July in 1991, 1994, 1998, and 2000, Rehnquist lectured on The Supreme Court in United States History as part of the law school’s Institute on World Legal Problems in Innsbruck, Austria. St. Mary’s has conducted the Institute as an annual five-week summer program at the University of Innsbruck since 1986, with the generous administrative support of that university’s Roman Law Institute. Rehnquist felt welcome in Innsbruck and earned the St. Mary’s …

Of Ivory Columns And Glass Ceilings: The Impact Of The Supreme Court Of The United States On The Practice Of Women Attorneys In Law Firms Comment., Nancy L. Farrer

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Commentary examines the effect United States Supreme Court decisions on sex discrimination in the legal profession. Discrimination against women currently appears to be alive and well in the legal field. Decisions like Bradwell v. Illinois and In re Lockwood frustrated women attorneys for over a century, allowing states to determine women were unfit for occupations in areas like law. Hishon v. King & Spalding, and later, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, applied Title VII protections to evaluations of potential law firm partners—a process previously closed and unassailable for most of the history of the legal profession. More recently, Harris v. …

Public Relief

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Roe V. Wade: Substance And Process In The Abortion Debate, Margaret G. Farrell

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Congressional Reform: Can Term Limitations Close The Door On Political Careerism., Julia C. Wommack

St. Mary's Law Journal

Addressing Congressional woes requires reform. Entrenched incumbency is a detriment to the legislative system. Although the enactment of initiatives restricting Congressional terms limits signal voters agree, better alternatives exist. The only prerequisites found in the Constitution for serving in Congress are age, residency, and citizenship. While the twenty-second amendment proscribes the presidential office limit maximum as two terms, no such limitations exist for a congressman or congresswoman. Sitting incumbents have substantial advantages over their challengers. Incumbents success ratio exceeds 80% in Senate races and is approximately 90% for elections in the House of Representatives. Congressional term limitations attempt to eliminate …

A Medical-Legal Dilemma: When Can "Inappropriate" Nutrition And Hydration Be Removed In Indiana?, Kathleen M. Anderson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Evolving Concept Of Preemption Removal: An Expansion Of Federal Jurisdiction., Scott Roberts

St. Mary's Law Journal

Federal jurisdiction based on preemption removal should extend to federal laws which meet the requirements of Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Taylor. The well-pleaded complaint rule restricts federal removal jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for federal jurisdiction to attach. Therefore, the defendant’s right to a federal forum depends upon whether the plaintiff chooses to invoke a federal claim in its complaint. Courts routinely criticize the linking of removal jurisdiction to the well-pleaded complaint rule for giving plaintiffs incentive to …

Patient Coercion By Hospitals: A Comparison Of Antitrust Standards In Hyde And Rumple, Cindy L. Porter

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Can Mental Health Professionals Predict Judicial Decisionmaking? Constitutional And Tort Liability Aspects Of The Right Of The Institutionalized Mentally Disabled To Refuse Treatment: On The Cutting Edge, Michael L. Perlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An At-Will Employee May Be Fired Despite Motives Which Violate State Public Policy., Kelsey Menzel

St. Mary's Law Journal

Scholars generally agree children possess fewer rights than adults under the Constitution. Moreover, the school, as a restricted environment, places additional constraints on the constitutional rights of minors. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court extended to minor students the rights of equal protection and civil due process. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court acknowledged children have First Amendment rights of self-expression in a school environment. This marked a significant change from the judiciary’s traditional reluctance to interfere in school matters. Subsequent First Amendment challenges to school board decisions have focused on library book removal. …