5033 research outputs found
Sort by
Confusion, Chaos, and Conflict in U.S. Law and Health Care after Dobbs
Get PDFThe U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision caused a proliferation of contradictory state laws and judicial decisions that are producing confusion for health care providers, which in turn limits access to care for all patients of reproductive age. This paper documents the rapidly changing legal landscape to investigate and contextualize the significance of these inter‑state conflicts and illustrate how inequities deepen when health care is left in the hands of state governments without national law to provide guardrails. Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship, including legal, medical, and public health research, this essay considers how traditional federalism theory, which encourages sub‑government variation, does not provide clear solutions to state law barriers to inter-state cooperation within a federal union, which has been essential to regulating health care in the U.S
Teaching Is This Case Rightly Decided?
Get PDF“Is this case rightly decided?” From the first week of law school, every law student must grapple with this classroom question. This Essay argues that this vital question is problematically under-specified, creating imprecision in thinking about law. This Essay thus advocates that law professors should present students with a three-part framework: whether a case is rightly decided legally, morally, or sociologically.
Additionally, this Essay argues that disaggregating the question exposes deeper deficiencies in legal education. Many law professors do not provide students with serious grounding to engage in rigorous thinking about the relationship between law, morality, and justice, not to mention a deeper theory regarding law’s function in culture and society. Perhaps, such imprecision self-replicates into legal reasoning in legal scholarship and popular discourse
A Second Look: Local Labor Markets and The Impact of Ban the Box Policies After Criminal Legal Involvement
Get PDFThis paper estimates the impact of labor demand on the employment and recidivism outcomes of released prisoners. Higher labor demand at release generates higher earnings and lower recidivism. Reduced recidivism persists after controlling for the observed labor market outcomes of the returning cohort, suggesting that labor demand impacts crime through channels beyond the direct formal employment of returning prisoners. Difference-in-differences based evidence suggests Ban the Box (BTB) policies delaying when employers can ask about criminal records improve labor market outcomes and lower recidivism for misdemeanor defendants. Evidence for felony defendants and returning prisoners is mixed but suggestive of similar patterns
A Matter of Facts: The Evolution of Copyright’s Fact-Exclusion and Its Implications for Disinformation and Democracy
Get PDFThe 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 deal with facts per se but instead with adjacent and related copyright doctrines. A close look at these cases, as well as at relevant legislative history, uncovers provocative aspects of the fight over facts through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This fight is really a debate over the evolving place of human labor and the contours of social progress regarding the production of facts in crucial periods of economic and political development. The nature of “facts” and their increasingly central role in governance and technological progress puts pressure on their control and manipulation, including by and for businesses and democratic institutions, such as legislatures and agencies. Revisiting this history amplifies the need for a broader copyright fact-exclusion and a richer public domain that will lead to doctrinal clarity for our digital age. It also has political implications for how to consider the contestability of facts in the twenty-first century as a matter of access to information and the stabilization of societal institutions – such as law, science, and a free press – that are critical for sustaining U.S. democracy
Rules & Laws for Civil Actions: 2024 Ed.
Get PDF2024 Edition
Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is an open-access resource for law students containing the U.S. Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and selected federal and state statutes. The book was created by a team of faculty members at the University of Iowa College of Law to supplement the study of Civil Procedure, Evidence, Constitutional Law, and other law school courses. In addition to containing the official text, each legal source found in Rules and Laws for Civil Actions is accompanied by an introductory section written by an Iowa Law professor explaining its significance and background. Students are able to access the online and digital versions of the resource free of charge.https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/books/1360/thumbnail.jp
The Routledge Companion to Gender and Covid-19
No full textThe Routledge Companion to Gender and Covid-19 is the first comprehensive research guide for researchers and students who seek to study and evaluate the complex relationship between gender and COVID-19.
This interdisciplinary collection touches on two major themes: first, how gender played a central role in shaping access to testing, treatment, and vaccines. Second, how the pandemic not only deepened existing gender inequalities, but also those along the lines of race, class, sexuality, disability, and immigration status.
Bringing together a diverse range of international scholars across a range of disciplinary perspectives, this intersectional and comparative focus on Covid explores topics including the pandemic’s impact on families, employment, childcare and elder care, human rights, as well as gender and political economy and leadership, public health law, disability rights, and abortion access.
The Routledge Companion to Gender and Covid-19 is an essential volume for scholars and students of Law, Gender Studies, Sociology, Health, Economics and Politics.https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/books/1365/thumbnail.jp
Birthright Citizenship in the Empire: Chinese-Filipino Intimacies and Race-making in U.S. Colonial Philippines, 1912-1947
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.bu.edu/clark_speakers/1103/thumbnail.jp
Trial Selection and Estimating Damages Equations
Get PDFMany studies have employed regression analysis with data drawn from court opinions. For example, an analyst might use regression analysis to determine the factors that explain the size of damages awards or the factors that determine the probability that the plaintiff will prevail at trial or on appeal. However, the full potential of multiple regression analysis in legal research has not been realized, largely because of the sample selection problem. We propose a method for controlling for sample selection bias using data from court opinions
Getting Merger Guidelines Right
Get PDFThis paper is on the new Merger Guidelines. It makes several arguments. First, that the Guidelines should be understood as existing in a political equilibrium. Second, that the new structural presumption of the Merger Guidelines (HHI = 1,800) is too strict, and that an economically reasonable revision in the structural presumption would have increased rather than decreased the threshold. Whereas the new Guidelines lowers the threshold to HHI 1,800 from HHI 2,500, an economically reasonable revision would have increased the threshold to HHI 3,200. I justify this argument using a bare-bones model of Cournot competition. Third, it seems unlikely, as an empirical matter, that merger enforcement under the existing Guidelines is socially desirable. Fourth, that federal merger enforcement raises serious constitutional issues, originally discussed in 1904, and that it may be time now, in view of the new Guidelines, to return to these foundational constitutional questions
Brief for Amici Curiae Legal Scholars Supporting Respondent
Get PDFQUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, preempts Idaho law in the narrow but important circumstance where terminating a pregnancy is required to stabilize an emergency medical condition that would otherwise threaten serious harm to the pregnant woman’s health but the State prohibits an emergency-room physician from providing that care