Litigation Commons^™

The Billion Dollar Industry That Has Never Paid Its Money-Makers: The Ncaa’S Attempt At Compensation Through Names, Images And Likeness, Christopher Palmieri

Touro Law Review

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) has regulated collegiate sports for over one hundred years. The NCAA has long relied upon the principle of amateurism to prohibit college athletes from profiting from their name, image and likeness (“NILs”). However, recently this principle has drawn a lot of attention and has all but crumbled. States across the nation have passed legislation that will soon come into effect to bypass the NCAA bylaws and allow student athletes to profit from their NILs, even the United States Supreme Court has called the NCAA’s business model into question. This has left the NCAA with …

Bivens And The Ancien Régime, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In its most recent decision narrowly construing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court derided Bivens as the product of an “‘ancien regime,’ ... [in which] the Court assumed it to be a proper judicial function to ‘provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective’ a statute’s purpose.” This Essay considers the relevance for Bivens claims of the Court’s shift to a nouveau régime to address the implication of private rights of action under statutes. It first describes and assesses the Court’s reasons for shifting to the nouveau r …

State-Local Litigation Conflicts, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Trump V. Mazars Usa, Llp: The Case Of The Chief Justice And The Congressional Subpoenas, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Precedent As Rational Persuasion, Brian N. Larson

Faculty Scholarship

The ways that judges and lawyers make and justify their arguments and decisions have profound impacts on our lives. Understanding those practices in light of theories of reasoning and argumentation is thus critical for understanding law and the society it shapes. An inquiry that explores the very foundations of all legal reasoning leads to a broad, important question: How do lawyers and judges use cited cases in their legal arguments? It turns out there is practically no empirical research to suggest the answer. As the first step in a comprehensive empirical effort to answer this question, this article performs a …

Appellate Courts And Civil Juries, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In federal civil litigation, decision-making power is shared by juries, trial courts, and appellate courts. This Article examines an unresolved tension in the different doctrines that allocate authority among these institutions, one that has led to confusion surrounding the relationship between appellate courts and civil juries. At base, the current uncertainty stems from a longstanding lack of clarity regarding the distinction between matters of law and matters of fact. The high-stakes Oracle-Google litigation—which is now before the Supreme Court—exemplifies this. In that case, the Federal Circuit reasoned that an appellate court may assert de novo review over a jury’s verdict …

Twenty-Third Amendment Problems Confronting District Of Columbia Statehood, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Proposals to make the District of Columbia a state would leave behind a new, substantially smaller District named "Capital." The Twenty-Third Amendment guarantees that the new District would have three electoral votes, no matter how few people reside in it. Proposals that would make the District of Columbia state do not adequately address this issue. Statehood, if it proceeds, should be conditioned on repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment. Potential alternative statutory solutions to the Twenty-Third Amendment--which do not exist in recent bills that Congress has considered--present constitutional, legal, and practical problems.

In one sense, the scope of this Article is …

Reducing Election Litigation, Derek T. Muller

Journal Articles

Election litigation has exploded, and judges have increasingly been asked to evaluate ever-finer points of election administration. This Article posits some reasons that the judiciary has done so, and it offers potential ways to reduce election litigation.

Part I examines the increase in litigation and attributes at least some of that increase to several causes: increased campaign expenditures on litigation; increased partisanship in state legislatures yielded more contentious election laws; the decline of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder; and Supreme Court extensions of the Anderson v. Celebrezze framework to broad areas of election …