11929 research outputs found
Sort by
NYT Coverage of Brenda Andrew\u27s Case and Submitted Sex Stereotyping Amicus Brief
No full textAdam Liptak of the New York Times wrote on April 1st covering Brenda Andrew\u27s case before the Supreme Court. The article, titled Did Prosecutors’ Sex Shaming Help Send Brenda Andrew to Death Row?, included a cite to the amicus brief previously covered by this Blog and available here
From White Noise to Sound Decisions: Overcoming Noise in Corporate Law
Get PDFThis article explores the realm of noise, which is characterized by the lack of discernible patterns and unpredictable nature, distinguishing it from biases in terms of features, implications, and solutions. After examining the integration of behavioral economics into legal matters, the article delves into the application of this framework in the context of corporate law.
Studying noise into corporate law offers valuable insights into specific areas. Needless to say, this paper sheds light on the legal practice of corporate law, encompassing aspects such as contractual matters, M&A due diligence, and corporate governance. Understanding the complexities of corporate transactions is particularly crucial for legal practitioners in effectively navigating the intricate landscape of corporate law. Then, it reveals some key mechanics of the board of directors, taking into account how noise levels fluctuate in the presence of a superstar CEO. When recognizing the influence of noise in these contexts, corporate decision-making processes can be better understood and potentially improved. Furthermore, delving into the study of noise allows for a comprehensive understanding of its influence on legal precedents and the potential distortions it may introduce into the system. This encompasses the consolidation of both precedents issued by courts and those within the practices of law firms based on industries, regulatory requirements, and references to past offerings. By examining the effects of noise on precedents, legal professionals can gain deeper insights into the dynamics of corporate decision-making. Drawing from the theories of Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein, I present methods for reducing noise through the implementation of decision hygiene techniques and mediating assessment protocols, while also examining the extent of the potential role of artificial intelligence in addressing these challenges in corporate law and governance.
The paper concludes with three significant insights. Firstly, regulatory bodies must navigate various legal fields to effectively regulate and enforce compliance across industries. Understanding the interplay between noise and biases is essential for ensuring fair and efficient best practices. Secondly, corporate law stakeholders must recognize the multifaceted effects of noise and take steps to silence it in their decision-making processes. Recognizing the implications of noise enhances the care, attention to detail, integrity, and effectiveness of corporate environments. Furthermore, while AI demonstrates commendable capabilities in addressing biases and excels in data processing to mitigate noise, making it a particularly well-suited tool for tackling challenges related to noise, maybe even surpassing its effectiveness in addressing biases, it is crucial to consistently acknowledge the superiority of human judgment in making decisions.
By presenting a few behavioral economics insights, this article aims at inviting readers to broaden their intellectual horizons, engaging scholars, legal professionals, and those interested in corporate governance to explore corporate law from an innovative lens
Professor Christine Haight Farley Spoke at the Texas A&M University School of Law 10th Anniversary IP Conference
No full textProfessor Farley spoke at the Trademark and Unfair Competition Law panel at Texas A&M University School of Law\u27s 10th Anniversary IP Conference “A Decade of Growth and Transformation in Intellectual Property and Technology Law” Symposium
A Common Law Corporate Crisis: The Status of Common Law Criminal Immunities for Foreign State-Owned Enterprises in a Post-Halkbank Era
No full textAmerican University Law Review Foru
The Constitutionality of Barring Undocumented Immigrants from Second Amendment Protections
No full textUnder current federal law, undocumented immigrants remain unable to access one of the most fundamental rights contained within our Constitution: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Several undocumented immigrants have challenged the constitutionality of the federal prohibition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)), resulting in a three-way circuit split on whether undocumented immigrants are protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, has remained silent on the issue, leaving undocumented immigrants unprotected.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Second Amendment decision, N.Y. State Pistol & Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen, upended the traditional method of constitutional review, means-end scrutiny, in favor of a textual-historical approach to Second Amendment challenges. This Comment applies the two-step approach elucidated in Bruen, arguing that (1) undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” and thus are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment and (2) that the nation’s history of firearm regulation is not consistent with a categorical ban on undocumented immigrants’ firearm possession. Accordingly, this Comment concludes that the Supreme Court should strike down § 922(g)(5)(A) as violative of the Second Amendment
Restraining the Heartless: Erosion of Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute and the Path Forward for Victims Seeking Redress
No full textThe Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) is a U.S. federal law dating back to 1789 that allows non-U.S. citizens to file civil lawsuits in federal courts against individuals or entities for alleged international law violations. While originally interpreted to address piracy and the safeguarding of foreign diplomats, the ATS gained new relevance in the late twentieth century when it was used to hold individuals and corporations accountable for human rights abuses committed abroad, making it a critical tool in seeking justice for human rights violations.
This Comment argues that there is no longer a realistic federal forum for ATS suits against foreign or domestic corporations. Through a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has effectively precluded federal courts from hearing suits against corporations under the ATS. Furthermore, the failure to provide a federal forum for civil tort claims against corporations for violations of international law under the ATS is a departure from precedent and the United States’ international and domestic legal obligations. Given the status of ATS claims against corporations in federal court, this Comment concludes that state courts are the most viable and necessary forum for tort suits against corporations for violations of international law
Teaching Students to Manage Difficult Conversations with Clients, Colleagues, and Supervisors
No full textIn today’s legal landscape, marked by rapid changes and voluminous information about problems we can do little to change, both law students and clinical law faculty face unique challenges. The constant influx of information about global and societal issues beyond individual influence can lead to stress and feelings of helplessness. And yet, the ability to effect change, advocate against injustice, and protect our clients’ rights and dignity, is tantalizingly within our grasp as legal professionals. As the practice of law evolves with technological advances and deepening societal divisions, our educational approach must foster not only legal skills but also resilience and adaptability. And, clinical law faculty must prepare students to navigate these dynamic conditions while also managing their own well-being. This dual challenge emphasizes the need for educational environments that support both the professional and personal resilience of students and educators alike. The 2024 New England Clinical Conference invites proposals that explore innovative strategies for integrating resilience and adaptability into the clinical curriculum. Contributions should offer methods for faculty to model and teach these capabilities, ensuring that both students and faculty can thrive as proficient, compassionate attorneys in a rapidly-changing world
Insuring Judgements and the Disclosure GAP
Get PDFJudgment preservation insurance (“JPI”) is a newer, under-the-radar financial innovation upending the litigation landscape today. By insuring plaintiffs\u27 trial victories on appeal, these policies neutralize the risk of reversal, but have been criticized for preventing settlement and extending disputes. Despite JPI\u27s growing use, a regulatory blind spot allows these policies to remain concealed from the courts throughout the appellate process. We spotlight JPI, contrast it with widely used litigation insurance products, and propose appellate disclosure requirements in line with existing insurance disclosure rules. These simple changes would close the disclosure gap on appeal
Christian Domination
Get PDFIt is hard to deny that the United States is a Christian nation despite the First Amendment’s promise that the legislature will not establish a religion. The United States is not a Christian nation merely because of the religious beliefs that many people privately hold. It is a Christian nation, in part, because the courts and legislatures have facilitated that development. Moreover, as this Article will argue, Christian favoritism within the political and legal system has developed in sharp contrast to the treatment of Black people, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled people.
This Article explores the development of Christian domination through the tentacles of one case—Employment Division v. Smith—which involves the denial of unemployment benefits to two individuals who smoked peyote at a Native American Church religious ceremony. It makes four points. First, this Article argues that the courts misframed Smith as one about a neutral state law that had an adverse religious impact, missing the evidence of overt religious bias faced by the plaintiffs. Second, this misframing, in turn, caused Congress to overreact by enacting a law—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—that gave unprecedented protection to religious adherents. Third, even when RFRA does not apply, the Supreme Court has done constitutional gymnastics to protect Christian adherents despite the holding in Smith. Fourth, the Court used the unconstitutional overreach of some aspects of RFRA to fashion a constitutional rule that has done nothing to limit protections for Christians but has dramatically cut back Congress’s ability to enact civil rights legislation.
This is quite a story of the spread of Christian domination from the denial of protection to two participants in a Native American Church ceremony. Telling this story may help us re-frame the discussion of religious discrimination to understand the extraordinary case law that has protected Christians in sharp contrast to, and sometimes at the expense of, the treatment of various historically disadvantaged groups in society
How Television is Depicting Abortion Post-Dobbs
No full textAn article titled Women\u27s Lives Are on the Line, and Our Hands Are Tied”: How Television Is Reckoning With a Post-Dobbs America was published by Stephanie Herold in Women\u27s Health Issues