Legislation Commons^™

Defining Civil Rico's "Injury To Business Or Property" Requirement: The Supreme Court Takes A Few Steps, Says It Punts, But Actually Fumbles, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Throughout its history, the RICO statute has presented lawyers with something of an interpretive parlor game. It is indefinite along multiple dimensions and thereby given multiple interpretations, even down to the word level. In Medical Marijuana v. Horn, the Supreme Court set out to define one of RICO's civil-standing provisions: Namely, whether the statute's "injury to business or property" requirement can be satisfied when a plaintiff suffers both economic and personal injuries. In a 5-4 decision, members of the Court engaged in an interpretive battle over the meaning of the phrase and succeeded only in holding that civil RICO does …

Echoes Of Exclusion: The Underrepresentation Of Women In Congressional Testimony And Its Consequences For Judicial Decision-Making, Caroline L. Bruckner, Elizabeth Keith, Karen O'Connor, Collin A. Coil

ConLawNOW

Congressional hearing witnesses play a major role in the legislative process, providing information to committees to assist members and staff in crafting legislation. Recently, there has been increasing focus on the impact of congressional witnesses on legislative outcomes, executive implementation of federal statutes, and corresponding judicial decisions. This has raised questions as to the extent to which the underrepresentation of women and other marginalized groups as congressional witnesses can be measured and how their lack of representation translates to inequitable outcomes across all branches of government. This work explores the widespread use of congressional witness testimony in recent U.S. Supreme …

Congress Is An It: A New View Of Legislative History, Brian D. Feinstein

Emory Law Journal

Prominent judges and scholars have long challenged the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Critics point to the privileged role that supposedly unrepresentative committee chairs play in the production of legislative history and a perceived inability to aggregate individual lawmakers’ intentions. These features, the argument goes, cast doubt on the reliability of committee reports, floor speeches, and the like as windows into congressional intent. This critique even comes with a pithy framing: using legislative history to interpret statutes is misguided because “Congress is a ‘they,’ not an ‘it.’”

This widely adopted expression, although appropriate in previous congressional epochs, …

A Matter Of Facts: The Evolution Of Copyright’S Fact-Exclusion And Its Implications For Disinformation And Democracy, Jessica Silbey

Faculty Scholarship

The Article begins with a puzzle: the curious absence of an express fact-exclusion from copyright protection in both the Copyright Act and its legislative history despite it being a well-founded legal principle. It traces arguments in the foundational Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service) and in the Copyright Act’s legislative history to discern a basis for the fact-exclusion. That research trail produces a legal genealogy of the fact-exclusion based in early copyright common law anchored by canonical cases, Baker v. Selden, Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, and Wheaton v. Peters. Surprisingly, none of them …

Schoolhouse Rock! Rules: Orthodoxies And Unorthodoxies In Congressional Procedure, John Cannan

Faculty Publications

Is the Schoolhouse Rock! cartoon version of the conventional legislative process really dead? According to some legal academics, traditional Congressional procedures, documented in the cartoon I’m Just a Bill, have been replaced by unorthodox lawmaking—frequent and significant procedural legislative deviations. In actuality, the iconic cartoon and the traditional process are not ready for the grave just yet.

This paper documents the many nuances in orthodox and unorthodox lawmaking by reviewing over 1,500 laws passed between the 111th to116th Congresses and the information sources produced for each to evaluate how pervasive unorthodox law-making really is. The results show the true balance …

Interpreting State Statutes In Federal Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article addresses a problem that potentially arises whenever a federal court encounters a state statute. When interpreting the state statute, should the federal court use the state’s methods of statutory interpretation—the state’s canons of construction, its rules about the use of legislative history, and the like—or should the court instead use federal methods of statutory interpretation? The question is interesting as a matter of theory, and it is practically significant because different jurisdictions have somewhat different interpretive approaches. In addressing itself to this problem, the Article makes two contributions. First, it shows, as a normative matter, that federal courts …

Uncovering The Legislative Histories Of The Early Mail Fraud Statutes: The Origin Of Federal Auxiliary Crimes Jurisdiction, Norman Abrams

Utah Law Review

The federal crime of mail fraud is generally viewed as the original federal auxiliary jurisdiction crime, that is, a crime that does not protect direct federal interests against harm. Rather, it functions as an auxiliary to state crime enforcement. In the almost 150 years since Congress enacted the mail fraud statute, federal auxiliary crimes have proliferated and have become the most important part of federal criminal jurisdiction—so that, today, they largely duplicate state crimes. It is important to know how this form of federal criminal jurisdiction originated.

Mail fraud is a crime that scholars, judges, and lawyers have viewed as …

Seamen, Railroad Employees, And Uber Drivers: Applying The Section 1 Exemption In The Federal Arbitration Ace To Rideshare Drivers, Conor Bradley

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or the Act) exempts “seamen, railroad employees, [and] any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” from arbitration. In 2019, the Supreme Court held in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira that this provision exempted independent contractors as well as employees. This decision expanded the reach of the section 1 exemption and may affect the relationship between ridesharing companies, such as Uber, and their drivers. Previously, ridesharing companies argued that courts must enforce the arbitration clauses in their employment contracts because their workers were independent contractors and, therefore, section 1 …

Jail By Another Name: Ice Detention Of Immigrant Criminal Defendants On Pretrial Release, Kerry Martin

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article assesses the legality of an alarming practice: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely detains noncitizen criminal defendants soon after they have been released on bail, depriving them of their court-ordered freedom. Since the District of Oregon’s decision in United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012), a growing group of federal courts has held that when ICE detains federal criminal defendants released under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), it violates their BRA rights. These courts have ordered that the government either free the defendants from ICE custody or dismiss their criminal charges. This …

Why R&D Should Be Allocated To Subpart F And Gilti, Stephen E. Shay, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Patrick Driessen, J. Clifton Fleming Jr., Robert J. Peroni

Articles

This article responds to the notice of proposed rulemaking under sections 861 and 904 (REG105495-19) published in the Federal Register December 17, 2019 (the proposed regulations). The proposed regulations would not allocate U.S. shareholder deductions for research and development or experimentation (R&D or R&E) expenditures under section 174 (R&D deductions) to a gross income inclusion under section 951 (subpart F inclusion) or section 951A (global intangible low-taxed income)1 from a controlled foreign corporation for foreign tax credit limitation purposes.

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

A Matter For Interpretation: An Inquiry Into Confederate Symbolism And The Florida State Flag, Nicholas Mignanelli, Sarah C. Slinger

Scholarly Works

Are the red bars found on Florida's state flag a remnant of early twentieth-century nostalgia for the Confederacy? Who first proposed this design and why? What did this change mean to the citizens who witnessed it? This Article is an attempt to answer these questions by approaching them through the lenses of original intent and original meaning. In doing so, the Authors advance new strategies for decision-makers interested in uncovering the motives of those who first erected or affixed allegedly Confederate monuments and symbols.

Symposium On Pofma: Parliamentary Debates About Pofma – Hansard Beyond Statutory Interpretation?, Benjamin Joshua Ong

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

The issue of a legislative response to falsehoods first drew public attention when the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods held its public hearings. This public attention was renewed when the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (“POFMA”), in Bill form, was unveiled. Questions arose among both the public and MPs about whether POFMA would grant the Government power to stifle academic research, journalism, or the expression of opinion, as well as whether it would be difficult for an individual to seek recourse against an allegedly wrongly made Direction.This post focuses not with the substance of these issues (important …

Digital Realty, Legislative History, And Textualism After Scalia, Michael Francus

Pepperdine Law Review

There is a shift afoot in textualism. The New Textualism of Justice Scalia is evolving in response to a new wave of criticism. That criticism presses on the tension between Justice Scalia’s commitment to faithful agency (effecting the legislature’s will) and his rejection of legislative history in the name of ordinary meaning (which ignores legislative will). And it has caused some textualists to shift away from faithful agency, even to the point of abandoning it as textualism’s grounding principle. But this shift has gone unnoticed. It has yet to be identified or described, let alone defended, even as academic and …

How Safe Is Too Safe? Exemption 7(F) And The Withholding Of Critical Documents, Grant Snyder

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is one of the main tools used by the American public to investigate the actions of its government. Congress created FOIA in an attempt to make most government documents available to the public. Today, the FOIA process favors government withholding. This bias comes from institutional issues in courts’ review of FOIA challenges.

In the environmental and administrative law context, federal agencies use many exemptions to withhold government records from citizen and non-profit groups. Agencies that are tasked with permitting and regulating energy pipelines and other environmentally-sensitive infrastructure now regularly cite Exemption 7(F). These agencies …

Tracking Colorado Legislation, Robert Linz

Publications

No abstract provided.

Memorandum, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This legal Memorandum on the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and written by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The Memorandum is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

4 p.

"The legislative history primarily identifies two issues that SB08-200 was designed to resolve: (1) the need for dignity and access to justice for LGBT people and …

Master File, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This Master File of the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and compiled by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The SB08-200 Master File is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

449 p.

Making Meaning: Towards A Narrative Theory Of Statutory Interpretation And Judicial Justification, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

The act of judging is complex involving finding facts, interpreting law, and then deciding a particular dispute. But these are not discreet functions: they bleed into one another and are thus interdependent. This article aims to reveal-at least in part-how judges approach this process. To do so, I look at three sets of civil RICO cases that align and diverge from civil antitrust precedents. I then posit that the judges in these cases base their decisions on assumptions about RICO's purpose. These assumptions, though often tacit and therefore not subject to direct observation, are nonetheless sometimes revealed when a judge …

State-Action Immunity And Section 5 Of The Ftc Act, Daniel A. Crane, Adam Hester

Michigan Law Review

The state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. Brown immunizes anticompetitive state regulations from preemption by federal antitrust law so long as the state takes conspicuous ownership of its anticompetitive policy. In its 1943 Parker decision, the Supreme Court justified this doctrine, observing that no evidence of a congressional will to preempt state law appears in the Sherman Act’s legislative history or context. In addition, commentators generally assume that the New Deal court was anxious to avoid re-entangling the federal judiciary in Lochner-style substantive due process analysis. The Supreme Court has observed, without deciding, that the Federal Trade Commission might …

The Legislative History Of The Administrative Procedure Act, Roni A. Elias

Student Works

During the twentieth century, one of the most important developments in American government and politics was the expanding power of administrative agencies of all kinds. The enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of 1946 was the crucial event in the course of this expansion. The APA was the culmination of long-term efforts to regulate the decision-making of administrative agencies, and it reflected a significant political compromise. This paper traces the outlines of that reflection. In Part I, it reviews the political background leading up to the proposal of the legislation in the 79th Congress that became the APA. In …

The Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico: Trying To Gain Dignity And Maintain Culture, Arnold Leibowitz

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Picking Up The Remnants Post-Waller: Properly Limiting The Scope Of Uneconomic Remnant Claims In Wisconsin Eminent Domain Proceedings, Samuel A. Magnuson

Marquette Law Review

Statutory interpretation often requires a court to review the legislative intent behind the statute. However, this task is not always easily undertaken when the intent of the legislature is itself unclear. A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court case illustrates the difficulty in properly interpreting arguably ambiguous statutory language. Nevertheless, this Comment hopes to demonstrate that by examining the history of remnant theory, it should be clear that uneconomic remnant claims in eminent domain proceedings were intended to be limited to situations where the partial taking creates either a physical remnant or a financial remnant. Furthermore, this Comment argues that the Wisconsin …

Export Controls - A Private Cause Of Action Under The Export Administration Act Of 1979, Wilbur Owens

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Making Sausage: What, Why And How To Teach About Legislative Process In A Legislation Or Leg-Reg Course, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Although a rapidly growing number of law schools require students to take a course on legislation, many of these courses teach very little about how laws are actually enacted. This essay, written for a special issue of the Journal of Legal Education, argues that study of the legislative process helps students interpret and apply statutory language.

The essay surveys existing text books and supplemental resources that could be easily integrated into a Leg-Reg or Legislation class to explain modern Congressional procedure. The focus is the multiple distinct paths that bills may take through a legislative body and the written …

Cu Law Library Launches New Resource For Historical Colorado Statutory Research, Robert M. Linz

Publications

No abstract provided.

Intentionalism Justice Scalia Could Love, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

Book review of The Nature of Legislative Intent by Richard Ekins (Oxford 2012).

Protecting Whistleblower Protections In The Dodd-Frank Act, Samuel C. Leifer

Michigan Law Review

In 2008, the United States fell into its worst economic recession in over seventy years. In response, Congress enacted the near-comprehensive Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 922 of Dodd–Frank, in particular, includes specific provisions designed to incentivize and protect corporate whistleblowers. These provisions demonstrated Congress’s belief that a comprehensive and robust whistleblower protection scheme was essential to preventing many of the abuses that caused the financial crisis. Unfortunately, this section’s inconsistent language has produced conflicting decisions within the federal judiciary. In accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)’s own reading of Section 922, several district …

Of Gangs And Gaggles: Can A Corporation Be Part Of An Association-In-Fact Rico Enterprise? Linguistic, Historical, And Rhetorical Perspectives, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Over 30 years ago, courts of appeals began to hold that the RICO statute’s definition of association-in-fact enterprise is broad enough to include corporations as constituent members, even though that definition states that such an association is limited to a “group of individuals.” This Article demonstrates why these cases were wrongly decided from a variety of perspectives: linguistic, systemic and consequentialist. It also suggests a strategy for correcting this widespread interpretive error and provides evidence that the Supreme Court may be disposed to agree that the lower courts have uniformly erred.

Enacted Legislative Findings And The Deference Problem, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

The constitutionality of federal legislation sometimes turns on the presence and sufficiency of congressional findings of predicate facts, such as the effects of conduct on interstate commerce, state discrimination justifying the abrogation of sovereign immunity, or market failures justifying intrusions on free speech. Sometimes a congressional committee makes these findings in legislative history. Other times, Congress recites its findings in a statutory preamble, thus enacting its findings as law. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has not distinguished between enacted and unenacted findings in deciding how much deference to accord congressional findings. This is striking because the difference between enactedness and unenactedness …