9873 research outputs found
Sort by
The Supreme Court’s Old Habits in a New Era? Native Nations, Statehood, and an Indigenous-led Future for Natural Resources
Full text linkart I of this essay looks back and, relying on Winans and Winters, illustrates the Court’s longstanding commitment to a recognition of tribally reserved rights while requiring a collaborative approach that acknowledges some state interest and authority. Part II then briefly assesses the modern era of Indigenous leadership in natural resources, reviewing the ways in which Native Nations are implementing a new framework of collaborative stewardship for lands, waters, wildlife, and other ecological systems. Finally, Part III considers how the lessons or impacts of this broader movement might be relevant in future conflicts raising questions of statehood and tribal rights
Visual Map of U.S. v. Washington Subproceedings
Full text linkThis visualization shows the subproceedings of U.S. v. Washington and includes 90 subproceedings and sub-subproceedings. Some of the subproceedings have no caption other than TBD because although reference was found to their existence, no docket or information about the actual matter covered has been identified
Pierce County Juvenile Justice Assessment
No full textFollowing a 2024 County Council request, the Pierce County Performance Audit Committee contracted with the CoLab for Community and Behavioral Health Policy at the University of Washington to conduct an audit of the county’s juvenile justice system against national and research best practice. The assessment is intended to guide future county investments in preventing and responding to youth crime, particularly youth violence, and to inform current policy discussions around the need to invest significant county funds into a renovation or reenvisioning of the current Juvenile Justice Court and Detention Center (Remann Hall)
Everything You Need to Know About the New Edition of the Bluebook
No full textWhat do you need to know about the new Bluebook? Probably nothing.
I suppose we could just end the article right here. As a practicing lawyer, you likely don’t spend much time thinking about The Bluebook. You learned whatever you needed to learn during your long-ago days as a law student, and that’s more than enough to get by today. If you’re sophisticated about your legal citations, then you think about citation more as an opportunity for persuasion, not a source of anxiety regarding improperly italicized commas. So this year’s release of the updated 22nd edition might have sneaked up on you
Developing Financial Infrastructure and the Role of Non-Depositary Lenders in International Financial Centers
No full text
Brief Amicus Curiae Regarding Presumption of Only Partial Invalidity on Behalf of Former Members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Behalf of Respondents, Trump v. Slaughter, U.S. Supreme Court (No. 25-332)
No full textSummary of Argument:
When a statute is held unconstitutional, the ‘normal rule [is] that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course.” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985). The Court should hold that the removal provision in section 41 is constitutional. But if the Court concludes that section 41 violates Article II, it should “limit the solution to the problem.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320, 328 (2006).
The gravamen of the government’s constitutional argument is that the FTC exercises substantial executive authority, and that because of section 41—in contravention of Article II—the President cannot control the Commission’s exercise of that authority because he cannot control (by direction, and if necessary by removal) the Commissioners who direct the FTC’s actions. But to control the actions of the FTC, a President needs only the ability to control the actions of a majority of its five Commissioners. A remedy according the President the power to remove at will three Commissioners would be sufficient to cure any such Article II violation. Application of the section 41 removal limitation to the other two Commissioners would be constitutional.
The First and Second Congresses both created multimember bodies which included minority members whom the President could not remove. That action is compelling evidence that the framers of the Constitution, many of whom were members of Congress in 1790 and 1792, did not regard such arrangements as inconsistent with Article II.
If the Court holds that section 41 violates Article II, the remedy should leave in effect the unchallenged portions of the statute. Section 41, like provisions of 50 other federal statutes, requires that the Commission be bipartisan, limiting to three the number of FTC Commissioners who may be members of the same political party. Such statutory requirements—which the government does not challenge—further a number of important purposes, including assuring a diversity of viewpoints among the members of these boards and commissions. To ensure the effectiveness of these statutory bipartisanship requirements, any remedy should provide that a President’s at-will removal authority is ordinarily limited to members of his or her own political party
