Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of LawNot a member yet
17912 research outputs found
Sort by
Excepting Nondelegation from Supreme Court Review
Get PDFFor almost a century, the nondelegation doctrine has allowed Congress to create hundreds of distinct federal agencies—provided the delegation meets the “intelligible principle” requirement. While not exacting, this standard underlies the current administrative state, and absent a sufficiently defined alternative, the intelligible principle should remain undisturbed. A recent dissent and a separate pending case, however, give pause. Both present opportunities to rework the intelligible principle, but the solutions offered do not advance the ball. Rather, they suggest replacing a vague interpretive standard with a troublesome interpretive standard, which is unwarranted when a meaningfully clearer one is unfeasible. Further still, conceptualizing agency power as a commingling of the two political branches implicates the political question doctrine, potentially immunizing congressional delegations from judicial review. Under Article III’s Exceptions Clause, Congress has the power to regulate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, implying some authority to determine justiciability as well. Invoking the political question doctrine, Congress can thus remove nondelegation claims from Supreme Court review by statute, funneling these cases instead to the D.C. Circuit to ensure an Article III court hears the claims. By doing so, Congress would effectively adopt the intelligible principle, limiting undue alternatives and crystallizing it in amber within the federal courts
A Patent Pool-Party: Changing the Current Use of Patent Pools for Treatment Innovation in Public Health Emergencies
Get PDFIntellectual property laws have been in tension with the creation of innovation for the public good since their inception. Many intellectual property concepts such as patents create an opportunity for ownership of invention, which in the general market and in typical life circumstances, has the power to aid innovation and work successfully in the market. However, in times of emergency, intellectual property can create a roadblock that costs human life. As highlighted in the current COVID-19 pandemic, intellectual property laws have the power to act as a hinderance to the innovation of lifesaving treatments by not allowing information to be passed quickly enough or by not providing vital information to low-income countries. Patent pools provide one way to combat this tension between intellectual property laws and the public good. Patent pools started as a tool to further the creation of the sewing machine in 1856. Real-life examples such as the Medicines Patent Pool or the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool show that patent pools can be successful in sharing this vital information. This Note argues that mandatory patent pools should be used as a tool in public health emergencies to help share lifesaving information where time is limited
Party Autonomy in Investor-State Arbitration: Supremacy of Treaty and the Future of Most-Favored Nation Treatment
Get PDFThe Problem of Extravagant Inferences
Get PDFJudges and lawyers sometimes act as if a constitutional or statutory term must, as a matter of semantics, be understood to have a particular meaning, when it could easily be understood to have another meaning, or several other meanings. When judges and lawyers act as if a legal term has a unique semantic meaning, even though it does not, they should be seen to be drawing extravagant inferences. Some constitutional provisions are treated this way; consider the idea that the vesting of executive power in a President of the United States necessarily includes the power to remove, at will, a very wide range of people who are involved in the execution of the laws. Some statutory provisions are also treated this way; consider the idea that the term “air pollutant” necessarily includes greenhouse gases. Those who draw extravagant inferences might be engaged in a form of motivated reasoning; their (unarticulated) values and preferences might be responsible for the particular inferences they draw. Alternatively, they might be engaged in an unacknowledged form of Dworkinian reasoning, in which they are attempting to make the best constructive sense out of a legal term
Copy, Paste, Disclose: The Informative Value of Boilerplate in Mutual Fund Disclosures
No full textBrown bag presentation by Anne Tucker, Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law, on a forthcoming work titled, Copy, Paste, Disclose: The Informative Value of Boilerplate in Mutual Fund Disclosures
The Court of Mass Incarceration
No full textBrown bag presentation by Rachel Barkow, Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU Law AND Faculty Director of the Peter L. Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, on two works entitled, The Court of Mass Incarceration: How the Supreme Court Abandoned the Constitution and Played a Central Role in Filling America’s Prisons and Jails and Bordenkircher v. Hayes: Condoning Plea Bargaining, Condemning the Jury
Right to be Heard in Administrative Procedure
No full textBrown bag presentation on a forthcoming work titled, Right to be Heard in Administrative Procedure by Mine Turhan, Visiting Scholar at UGA Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center and Assistant Professor of Administrative Law in the Faculty of Law at the Izmir University of Economics in Türkiye
Class of 2024 Commencement
Get PDFCommencement took place on May 18, 2024 to recognize Juris Doctor, Master of Laws and Master in the Study of Law graduates in the University of Georgia School of Law ceremony. The School of Law will held its commencement for the Class of 2024 in the Classic Center Grand Hall. The Honorable Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, class of 2006, delivered the keynote address.
A longer set of biographical information related to the speaker was shared alongside other Commencement 2024 details via email, and is duplicated below:
The Honorable Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves was sworn in as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 8, 2023. Judge Montgomery-Reeves served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware from November 2019 to February 2023. Judge Montgomery-Reeves served as a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery from November 2015 to November 2019.
Prior to her appointment, Judge Montgomery-Reeves was a partner in the Wilmington, Delaware office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, focusing on corporate governance, navigation of corporate fiduciary duties, stockholder class action litigation, derivative litigation, and complex commercial litigation. Before that, Judge Montgomery-Reeves practiced in the securities and corporate governance department of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in New York.
Judge Montgomery-Reeves graduated from the Sally McDonnell-Barksdale Honors College at the University of Mississippi in 2003. She received her law degree in 2006 from the University of Georgia School of Law. Judge Montgomery-Reeves served as a law clerk for Chancellor William B. Chandler of the Delaware Court of Chancery