Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
U.S. Administrative Law: A Casebook (5th ed.)
No full textThe number of administrative law texts is vast. The approach of this one, now in its fifth edition, is simple. It is: (1) to focus on the richest and most canonical cases; (2) to provide more extensive extracts of them than most casebooks; and (3) to keep the notes to a bare minimum. Updated through October 2025, the book contains a number of significant decisions from recent Supreme Court terms, as well as foundational classics that many contemporary casebooks cut, and much in between
Contracting for Consumer Trade Compliance
No full textExport compliance is becoming increasingly important for parties required to abide by U.S. law, including many online sellers of consumer products. These retailers’ contractual terms with their customers set forth a number of provisions governing the relationship between them, including those which deal with arbitration, indemnification, disclaimer of warranties, and other issues. Many such agreements also purport to create obligations on the part of the consumer as to export control and sanctions compliance relative to the products they purchase. These contract provisions attempt to do so, however, in often markedly different ways, and with language that may leave notable gaps in the breadth of restrictions purportedly created. For example, some such provisions focus primarily on the export of software, even in the case of retailers of physical goods. Some provisions only contain prohibitions against unauthorized exports and leave unaddressed the issue of sanctions compliance. Other versions are far more detailed and specifically prohibit unauthorized transshipments and re-exports, along with other types of prohibited exports. This Article analyzes the extent to which agreements between online retailers and consumers actually achieve reduced regulatory risk for the companies who use them. First, it compares how these provisions differ among a sample of retailers’ terms of use, and the effect these different provisions have on retailers’ contractual relationships with their customers. The Article also examines the intersection between the private law contractual relationship between retailers and consumers and the public law export controls and sanctions measures to which retailers are subject. Retailers may use these contractual terms to attempt to shield themselves from compliance risk, but the terms at issue are often incomplete and in any case are unlikely to be actually read or understood by consumers. In some cases, they may not even become part of a binding contract between the consumer and the company. This Article suggests more effective ways of drafting these contractual terms, but ultimately concludes that other compliance measures such as IP address monitoring are far more likely to provide a meaningful reduction in compliance risk for retailers
Sovereign Indignity and Immunity
No full textSovereign immunity, even if not understood as a monarchical relic, embodies the notion of indignity for a government having to answer to allegations of transgressions. This Essay proposes an argument to challenge the doctrine’s theoretical basis, especially with respect to the federal government in federal court. But there is first a threshold question to be answered: has the doctrine of federal sovereign immunity been practically mooted by the “death” of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents? One needs an express cause of action to sue the federal government absent Bivens, and if one has an express cause of action, under the recent Supreme Court decision Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, one doesn’t need to worry about federal sovereign immunity anyway. This Essay refutes that reasoning. Sovereign immunity can still be implicated by causes of actions beyond the scope of Kirtz (including what remains of Bivens), where the doctrine remains a barrier to suit. This Essay then explores a theoretical critique of federal sovereign immunity, what this Essay calls the “voluntary sovereign problem”: if the people of the United States is the sovereign and the three branches of federal government are its agents, then whenever the judiciary grants relief to a meritorious claim against the United States, the sovereign would be voluntarily paying the aggrieved. How would the judiciary granting relief “coerce” or otherwise threaten the “dignity” of the sovereign? The same argument does not apply directly to the sovereign immunity of states or Native American tribes in federal courts, but this Essay’s analysis of sovereign immunity should, fundamentally, lead us to rethink whether the respect due to a government’s autonomy must be conceptualized in terms of an “indignity” in getting “dragged into” courts for alleged violations of law
Should We Watch the Watcher or the Watched? The Transparency Debate in Auditor Regulation
No full textFederal law has mandated the use of outside auditors by public companies since 1934. For much of that time, the audit industry watched itself. It monitored audit quality and decided how to address auditor misconduct. In 2002, Congress created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”) to watch the auditors. The legislation designed a regulatory scheme that presumed audit performance could be improved through an open and cooperative relationship between the regulator and the regulated audit firm. Congress created accountability for the agency by mandating that it disclose its oversight activities to the public (an approach characterized as “right-to-know” or “democratic” transparency). This Article considers initiatives proposed by the PCAOB suggesting an approach of “regulatory” transparency, wherein it mandates that the regulated audit firms disclose information about their operations to the public. The Article considers whether an approach to auditor oversight that focuses on watching the watched audit firm furthers the PCAOB’s statutory goal of audit quality improvement. It expresses skepticism about the approach and offers alternatives, consistent with the concept of democratic transparency, which could drive audit quality more effectively
