9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Corrected Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Professors, Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, Center for Law, Equity and Race, Center for Racial and Economic Justice, Center on Law, Race & Policy, Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law, Gibson-Banks Center for Race and the Law, The Lawyering Project, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and Disability Law United in Support of Plaintiff, Perkins Coie, LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:25-cv-00716-BAH)
Full text link
Accessing Justice in Washington\u27s Non-Unified Court System: Justice-Impacted Stories of Collaboration to Overcome Barriers
No full text
Treaty-making in troubled times: Victims and vulnerable groups at the heart of the UN Binding Treaty process
No full textMaking a Series of Rebuttable Presumptions
No full textStatutory construction has always been a bit of an adventure. Even if we are all textualists now, myriad tools and canons guide meaning. There is no single path through the thicket. Consider the Supreme Court’s latest round of environmental decisions. Everything from common sense to dictionaries, pre-enactment history to ill-defined context, informs the Court’s reading of bedrock environmental statutes. Reaching consensus on a single best reading is challenging. And yet, using independent judgment to determine the single best reading of a statute is exactly what Loper Bright instructs lower courts to do.
So what happens when this decision leaves statutory interpretations open to ad hoc approaches by individual jurists? Is environmental law doomed to fluctuate with the sensibilities of different jurists—or can it be independently stabilized
