11929 research outputs found
Sort by
\u27It\u27s Safe for Now\u27: The Rooney Rule is an NFL Institution. But for How Much Longer?
No full text[quote] It\u27s safe for now, American University sports law professor N. Jeremi Duru told USA TODAY Sports.
He added: The ruling is a couple of degrees removed from the Rooney Rule.
The reason it\u27s safe for the moment, Duru explains, is the Supreme Court ruling is specific to the college admissions process. It doesn\u27t apply to workplace environments.
But we\u27re almost guaranteed to see cases that seek to expand the ruling into the employment realm, Duru said
The Rise of the Black Quarterback: What It Means for America
No full textJust three days after the NFL’s biggest stage was set, Reid met with more than 100 students, faculty, and staff at AU’s Washington College of Law on February 1 to discuss his new book, Rise of the Black Quarterback: What It Means for America. The event—which kicked off WCL’s Black History Month programming—was hosted by the college’s Sport and Society Initiative, led by N. Jeremi Duru, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on sports law.?
“I want students to understand that sport is a tool we can leverage to benefit and strengthen society when it comes to equity and race—and that positive change in sport can be a roadmap for society,” Duru said
Panel 2 - Unreported Shortcomings of Title IX
Get PDFMODERATOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our second panel, Unreported Shortcomings of Title IX. I’m going to start off with a quick introduction of our moderator. Today we have Dean Lisa Taylor who is our Dean for Diversity, Inclusion and Affinity Relations at WCL. She is much beloved by students of the Journal and students of WCL in general. And I know she is going to kick off a great panel. Dean Taylor, it’s all yours
Reflection on Progress Without Equity: Title IX K-12 Athletics at Fifty
Get PDFTitle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) turned fifty this year. Despite tremendous progress for women and girls over the last five decades, the promise of gender equity in athletics remains elusive, especially at the K-12 level. Unlike so many other civil rights laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s, Title IX remains a highly under-litigated and underenforced statute. A basic Westlaw search for “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” yields more than 10,000 federal cases. But the same search for “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972” yields about 2500 cases. Only a small fraction of those cases (about 300) include the word “athletics,” and fewer still address gender inequity at the K-12 level. This Article provides a brief overview of the “state of play” concerning gender inequity in athletics and the basic structure of Title IX athletics equity law. It then considers the Ollier v. Sweetwater high school Title IX athletics case and lessons learned from that hard-fought litigation on behalf of a class of high school girls that sought to level the playing field at their school. It then makes nine recommendations for what changes should be made to our approach to Title IX athletics at the K-12 level to ensure more effective enforcement to achieve gender equity. Inequalities in athletics at the K-12 level require litigation and policy changes that will have substantial and positive impacts on the lives of girls and young women
Editors\u27 Note
Get PDFFor more than two decades, the Sustainable Development Law and Policy Brief (SDLP) has published works analyzing emerging legal and policy issues within the fields of environmental, energy, sustainable development, and natural resources law. SDLP has also prioritized making space for law students in the conversation. We are honored to continue this tradition in Volume XXIII
About SDLP
Get PDFThe Sustainable Development Law & Policy Brief (ISSN 1552-3721) is a student-run initiative at American University Washington College of Law that is published twice each academic year. The Brief embraces an interdisciplinary focus to provide a broad view of current legal, political, and social developments. It was founded to provide a forum for those interested in promoting sustainable economic development, conservation, environmental justice, and biodiversity throughout the world
Mandatory Infringement
Get PDFIn 2005, the Food and Drug Administration required the use of chlorofluorocarbon-free propellants in albuterol inhalers. But 3M held patents on the only U.S.-approved chlorofluorocarbon-free inhaler. The agency’s regulations forced multiple generic albuterol manufacturers to choose between infringing 3M’s patents or exiting the market. This state of affairs was lucrative for 3M, perhaps good for the environment, bad for competition, and terrible for patients faced with high costs for essential medical devices. This is an example of a general phenomenon: mandatory infringement. Intellectual property prohibits certain activities, but sometimes the government also mandates these very same activities. Such situations arise surprisingly frequently in fields including environmental protection, pharmaceutical labeling, information technology, and access to justice. The manifest injustice of regulatory law requiring what intellectual property law disallows has sparked vigorous debates over individual cases in all these fields. Yet there has been no unified treatment of how the law should address mandatory infringement. Courts and scholars have taken approaches that are scattershot, idiosyncratic, and even inconsistent with each other. The key to fixing mandatory infringement is understanding why it is a problem in the first place: competition. Mandatory infringement creates outsized market power due to an inverse relationship between the effect of regulations and intellectual property rights on competition. It further enables passing the buck between regulators and courts, encourages rent seeking rather than innovation, and induces government offloading of licensing costs onto regulated entities that produces a principal–agent disconnect. These phenomena explain why regulators and courts applying antitrust or intellectual property laws have difficulties resolving mandatory infringement. Although they try hard to reach fair outcomes, and often succeed, the distinctive aspects of mandatory infringement and authorities’ failure to recognize them frequently have left unjustified market dominance intact. A new approach is required: a trans-substantive doctrine that excuses mandatory infringement, not tied to specific legal regimes but broadly encompassing matters of competitive markets and public welfare
Insurance Theory and Judicial Independence in Non-Democratic Polities: A Comparative Assessment of Their Preeminence in Medieval Islamic Polities and Decline in Contemporary Saudi Arabia
No full textWhile academic works frequently assess the level of judicial independence in democratic states, there is insufficient analysis of whether the concept has any bearing in autocratic polities. By fusing independence theory and the Khaldunian notion of ‘asabiyyah (social solidarity), this dissertation aims to assess how Muslim scholars and judges activated the logic of insurance theory through their monopoly of the interpretation of the Shariah, which constituted the legal basis of medieval Muslim dynasties such as the Umayyad and Abbasid Empires. In sum, through this novel and multi-faceted mode of inquiry, this work determines that due to their assumption of a variety of executive and judicial duties, medieval Muslim scholars enjoyed strong privileges in the regulatory sphere and thereby posed as effective stabilizers in their respective polities. This ensured that the rulers’ sphere of control was moderated and effectively held to account. Furthermore, in an analogous fashion, Saudi jurists and justices played a strong and instrumental regulatory role in the Kingdom during the early years of the final iteration and modern version of the Saudi state. However, due to the Kingdom’s rapid advances in modernization and liberalization during the last two decades, the Saudi monarchy’s regulatory sphere has dramatically widened, and the power of the scholarly stratum has decreased. Ultimately, the balancing role and mechanism of insurance no longer operates in the Saudi setting; as many of the political changes introduced via modernization are well-entrenched, the possibility for any restoration of scholarly power appears unlikely
The 2022 U.S. Steel/Aluminum Tariff Ruling: A Legal Reckoning for the United States and the WTO over the National Security Exception in International Law
Get PDFOn December 9, 2022, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued landmark rulings against the United States in four cases brought by China, Switzerland, Norway, and Turkey involving the U.S. imposition and maintenance of restrictive trade measures on steel and aluminum imports dating back to 2018. The major effect of the rulings was to quash the idea that a WTO member had unfettered discretion to invoke the national security exception under Article XXI(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) whenever it suits its interests. The recent decisions build upon important WTO precedents addressing the applicability of the national security exception under international trade rules by providing more clarity and scope to the language contained within Article XXI(b)(iii), how and when Article XXI(b)(iii) should be applied in a given scenario, and who ultimately has the authority to make these determinations—the Member State or a WTO dispute resolution panel. The WTO held that though a WTO member reserves the right to determine what is in its national security interests, a WTO Member’s subjective assessment as to when to invoke the national security exception can be reviewed by an international judicial body through an objective review of the circumstances. The December 9 rulings underscore the important principle that the goal of trade liberalization will triumph over protectionism in instances where states seek to abuse trade rules under the guise of national security to score political points at home. The rulings also mark a critical turning point in the relationship between the United States and the WTO centered on the issue of national security that places the entire rules-based trading system at risk
American University Law Review Keynote Address
Get PDFMy talk this morning focuses on the agenda of the current Roberts Court. I think that every Supreme Court can be said to have an agenda. Sometimes it seems conscious and deliberate, apparent from the outset. Sometimes it seems to evolve and only becomes obvious later