14148 research outputs found
Sort by
Medellín Manifesto on Transnational Value Chains and International Law
No full textGlobal Value Chains (GVCs) have been heralded as the ‘new world of trade’, yet they branch far beyond what has traditionally been considered ‘trade’—they interact with and are informed by multiple legal regimes often in ways unrelated to the theoretical and practical bases of those regimes. Building on the 2016 IGLP Manifesto, which sought to place law at the centre of GVC research, the Medellín Manifesto’s aspiration is to establish a research agenda that is specifically focused on international law: one that treats GVCs as amorphous and transnational legal creatures—they are transnational value chains (TVCs); one that recognises that the interdisciplinary techniques used to understand TVCs and define them in law—regardless of whether they reflect ‘truth’ or ‘fact’; and ultimately one that explores international law’s possibilities and limits along the trajectory of TVCs
Parental Rights, Parental Choice, and State Public Education Mandates
No full textPierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska were cases about parental rights in general, and parental choice in particular. Both centered on a challenge to a state\u27s legal effort to reduce or eliminate the educational choices available to parents-in the former, by requiring students to attend public schools, in the latter, by requiring instruction in all schools, public and private, be conducted in English. Pierce and Meyer also were about state efforts to forge a homogeneous American citizenry by limiting the educational choices available to parents. As Justice McReynolds observed in Meyer, The desire of the Legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals . . . is easy to appreciate, but, as he observed a year later in Pierce, the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only
A. Harold Weber Moot Court Competition Award
Full text linkFor outstanding achievement in art of Oral Advocacy 1981
Whitton Prize for Excellence in Labor Law
Full text linkEstablished by Michael Whitton and awarded to the graduating third-year student who has demonstrated a commitment to the practice of labor and employment law through his or her course studies and work experience
Knowing God Loving God
No full textFriday, February 14, 2025 | 9:30 AM | Hesburgh Library, Scholars Lounge
The Notre Dame Law School Hindu Scripture Study Group (NDLSHSSG, if you prefer) presents its first speaker event! In this lecture, a visiting Hindu monk will draw on metaphysics and theology to explicate what the Hindu view of God is, how individuals can form a relationship with God based on this view, and how such a relationship can elevate them and help them overcome worldly entanglement and suffering.
Sponsor: Notre Dame Law School Hindu Scripture Study Grouphttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1998/thumbnail.jp
Do Machines Have Rights?
Full text linkWednesday, February 19, 2025 | 12:30 PM | Biolchini Hall of Law, Room 1315
Join the International and Graduate Programs for a Lunch and Learn with Professor Raúl Madrid. He will explore important philosophical and legal questions surrounding one of society’s most-pressing issues today: artificial intelligence. All are welcome.
Sponsor: International and Graduate Programs, Notre Dame Law Schoolhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1999/thumbnail.jp
NDLS Communicator: Week of 02.03.25
Full text linkThe Latest News Notre Dame Law School delegation to visit Strathmore Law School, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and the University of Cape Town Justice Leona Theron reflects on 30 years of democracy in South Africa at Notre Dame Law School
Faculty News and Briefs Mary Ellen O\u27Connell has published What Remains of Law Against War in the Georgetown Law Journal. Sam Bray recently presented a chapter from his book project on equity and change at the North American Workshop on Private Law Theory, held this year at Berkeley. Last week, Rick Garnett spoke on the Separation of Church and State at Wake Forest University School of Law. Fr. John Paul Kimes was quoted in an OSV News article about recent contradictions being proposed legislation and canon law protections during Reconciliation. Nicole Garnett was featured in an episode of The Learning Curve, a podcast hosted by the Pioneer Institute, where she discussed Catholic schools and school choice. Derek Muller wrote a new article for Election Law Blog about a Fourth Circuit decision that could potentially have a broad reach in federal court power over state election disputes. Notre Dame Law School was highlighted in Study International as a top global law school focused on shaping global thinking and producting ethically responsible professionals.
Events
Monday, February 3 Law and Economics Workshop: Yaron Nili, Duke Law School, 12:30 p.m., 2130 Faculty Meeting Room
Tuesday, February 4 Faculty Colloquium: David Hoffman, 12:30 p.m., 2130 Faculty Meeting Room
Wednesday, February 5 Anti-Establishment as an Individual Right: Prof. Emeritus Fred Gedicks of BYU Law School, 12:30 pm., 3130 Eck Hall
Thursday, February 6 Job Talk, 12:30 p.m. in 2130 Faculty Meeting Room
Friday, February 7 ND Law Review Federal Courts Symposium, 10:30 am, Introductory Remarks | 11:00 am Panel 1 | 1:30 pm | Panel 2: Emily Bremer and Notre Dame alum Judge Thomas Hardiman will speak. Private Law Workshop: Regulation by Rivals by Roy Shapira, Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University, 12:30 -2:10 p.m., 3108 Eck Hall Student Financial Wellness Week February 3-6
Around the Watercooler Kresge Law Library welcomes new staff member, Jake Miller Gabriela Gevechenova, the London Law Administrative Assistant, has welcomed her first child, daughter Gaia Valeria. Nominations are open for the 2025 University Faculty Award
Anti-Establishment as an Individual Right
No full textWednesday, February 5, 2025 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 3130
Join ACS as they host Prof. Emeritus Fred Gedicks of BYU Law School. Prof. Gedicks will discuss how the Free Exercise Clause has swallowed the Establishment Clause, along with why he believes in an anti-establishment individual right and narrower free exercise protections.
Sponsor: American Constitution Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1987/thumbnail.jp
Bank of America Foundation Fellowship 2015–2024
Full text linkThe Bank of American Foundation Fellowship, launched in 2015, covers the cost of salary and benefits for two graduating class members to work for two years at a city agency or nonprofit organization of their choice. The fellows’ work must advance community sustainability and provide legal services to low-income or underrepresented populations
May Federal Courts Answer Questions When Not Deciding Cases?
Full text linkConventional wisdom says that Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement prevents federal courts from answering legal questions when they are not deciding cases. This is only partially correct. This Article shows conditions under which a federal court may answer questions even when not deciding a case. To do so, it traces the appellate power back to its origins in English common law courts and through the early American judiciary. For centuries, common law judges have answered questions sent to them by lower courts when doing so would help those lower courts to decide pending cases. In England, the “case stated” procedure facilitated this; in the United States, the Judiciary Act of 1802 created the certificate of division that allowed circuit courts to send questions to the Supreme Court. These examples provide strong evidence that the Article III judicial power, as understood in 1789, included the ability to answer legal questions even when not deciding cases, at least when two conditions jointly hold. First, the answer must help a different federal court decide a pending case. Second, the judges may answer only the questions asked; they cannot choose different questions they would rather answer, even if such questions are part of the case.
This history and theory have immediate implications for the current Supreme Court’s appellate docket. By rule, the Court limits review to preselected questions, and the Justices frequently add or subtract questions to manipulate the docket so that the Justices may address the issues that interest them, leaving other questions that are integral to the case unanswered. Thus, the Court frequently answers questions without deciding the larger cases on the merits. This raises the question of whether Justices may give these answers and remain within Article III’s limits on the judicial power