16178 research outputs found
Sort by
Internet and Telecommunications Regulation
No full textThe second edition of Internet and Telecommunications Regulation has been completely revised, with the authors adding large sections that place the regulation of internet services at the heart of the book. The text is organized around regulatory themes, including the use of antitrust and sector-specific laws to respond to concerns about competition; the constraints on regulation imposed by the First Amendment; the relationship between state, national, and international regulation; the role of copyright; and statutory immunity for platforms from civil liability for third-party content. The book also includes important materials on the regulation of traditional telecommunications services not only because those services are important in their own right but also because the regulation of internet services builds on the regulation of traditional telecommunications services.
Internet and Telecommunications Regulation contains discussions and excerpts from legal materials to help readers understand current controversies, regulatory strategies, and the historical developments that led to them. Summaries and previews at the start of each set of readings help students understand the relevance of the readings and the larger issues they present, and questions at the end of each excerpt encourage students to think critically about those materials. The organization easily permits the selection of material for courses focused on particular industries or on particular types of regulation.https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_books/1009/thumbnail.jp
Securities Litigation: Enforcement and Compliance: Cases and Materials
No full textThe Fifth Edition continues the casebook\u27s traditional focus on Exchange Act Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 securities fraud litigation initiated by private plaintiffs, SEC enforcement officials, and DOJ criminal prosecutors, and it incorporates important developments since 2017 including the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s decisions in Lorenzo v. SEC (primary liability for securities fraud); Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (fraud-on-the market and class certification); and Liu v. SEC (court-ordered disgorgement as an equitable remedy in SEC enforcement actions). But in view of the recent emergence of securities compliance as its own distinct and important area of study, the casebook has also expanded its focus to encompass the prevention, detection, investigation, and remediation stages of compliance in the securities industry, with topics including the role of gatekeepers, monetary awards and statutory protections for whistleblowing, corporate internal investigations, deferred prosecution agreements, and requirements under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and federal anti-money laundering statutes.https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_books/1023/thumbnail.jp
Law Over Legalism: International Court Legitimacy in Lautsi v. Italy
Get PDF2009 brought an existential crisis to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In November, it unanimously ordered Italy to remove crucifixes from public schools. Backlash was unprecedented. The government promptly announced it would not comply. Politicians and social actors all across the political spectrum harshly criticized the decision and bashed the Court. Ten European countries joined Italy in referring the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court, which reversed the decision in 2011. The storm abated. Lautsi v. Italy likely received the most public attention of any ECtHR judgment. Much of the Court’s subsequent case-law was decided with an eye on avoiding another Lautsi.
This Article analyzes the social and political reactions to the Lautsi judgment in Italy in order to answer urgent questions in international law: how do the decisions of international courts obtain legitimacy, and why are they facing increasing trouble in doing so?
Lautsi and its aftermath suggest that international courts\u27 decisions are not legitimated merely through the soundness of their legal reasoning, but also by their ability to be perceived as consistent with national identity. Political debate will strive to situate a controversial decision as aligned with national values and mores. A successful international judicial decision is one that helps a community to find its better self
Allen v. Milligan: Anticlassification and the Voting Rights Act
Get PDFThe crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been called one of the most effective statutes ever enacted. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court famously gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Nearly a decade later, in Allen v. Milligan, the Court is now signaling that Section 2, the last remaining core provision of the Voting Rights Act, could be on the chopping block. With Milligan, the Court may be preparing to inject race-neutrality into Section 2, which could destroy the vestiges of the onetime super-statute.
This Commentary places Milligan within the broader scope of antidiscrimination law, tracing Supreme Court jurisprudence in public accommodations, education, affirmative action, employment law, and voting rights. Across all these areas, the Court has steadily moved away from the race-conscious antisubordination principle, and towards the race-neutral anticlassification principle. This trend has accelerated in recent years, potentially priming the Court to embrace Alabama\u27s race-neutral arguments in Milligan, and fully dismantle the Voting Rights Act
The Territories Under Text, History, and Tradition
Get PDFIn two of its major decisions in the 2021–2022 Term, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court continued solidifying its originalist method of constitutional interpretation by looking increasingly to historical regulatory practice to construe how the Constitution protects individual rights. The Court is focused not only on the original public meaning of constitutional provisions, but also on historical practice. Historical laws and practices are now key to understanding how those who lived at the relevant time thought a constitutional provision might be applied and what regulatory approaches were consistent with that provision. Bruen and Dobbs both considered laws passed by governments in the Western territories prior to statehood in the nineteenth century, but with polar opposite results. One day the Court suggested that territorial laws and practices were exceptional improvisations irrelevant to the search for a national tradition; the very next day, the Court implied that territorial laws can be valuable tools for constitutional interpretation. This Article searches for a more satisfying and consistent theory of how to utilize territorial history in constitutional cases.
Part I critically analyzes the decision in Bruen and the Court’s determination that territorial public-carry bans could not serve as analogues to support New York’s modern gun-licensing law. Part II explains the history of continental territories, examines Dobbs and other decisions invoking territorial laws and practices, and identifies relevant principles from legal scholarship regarding the Court’s reliance on non-federal sources to interpret provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Part III argues that the Supreme Court’s use of territorial history in Bruen was inconsistent with its past practice, that territorial history is especially likely to reflect federal constitutional meaning because the territories were subject to the federal Bill of Rights long before those rights were incorporated against state governments, and that a text, history, and tradition methodology should accord territorial laws and practices a meaningful role
The Unique Promise of the Alaska Constitution: The Right to Rehabilitation
Get PDFThe Alaska Constitution creates a unique promise for those convicted of crimes. In Abraham v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court held that article I, § 12 grants offenders a right to rehabilitation. Such a right is uncommon; few states, if they have similar protections at all, have labeled it a right. In the years since Abraham, the Court has occasionally addressed claims invoking the right, making clear that its decision was not an aberration. The court\u27s most thorough examination of the right occurred this term in Department of Corrections v. Stefano. This article seeks to examine and clarify the current doctrine before arguing that litigants and the Court should continue developing the right to rehabilitation. What\u27s certain is that the right places due process limitations on the state\u27s ability to terminate an offender\u27s participation in formal rehabilitative programming or deprive an inmate of a benefit without providing a comparable rehabilitative alternative. But I argue that litigants should seek broader application of the right in other areas of the criminal justice system
Law Thrown Overboard: Direct Democracy and the Alaska Ocean Rangers
Get PDFAlaska is one of the premier cruise destinations in the world. The vessels\u27 many amenities and luxuries, however, come with a price: cruise ships produce an inordinate amount of waste, most of which is dumped into the ocean. In 2006, Alaska voters passed a ballot measure establishing a program called the Ocean Rangers, which would monitor cruise ships in Alaskan waters to ensure that vessels were disposing of waste in accordance with state and federal law. In 2019, after an unsuccessful attempt in the state legislature to end the Ocean Rangers program, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy vetoed the entirety of the Ocean Rangers budget, effectively killing the program. This Note contends that because a ballot measure created the Ocean Rangers, Governor Dunleavy\u27s veto likely violated the Alaska Constitution. First, this Note discusses the environmental risks of unregulated dumping and the cruise industry\u27s historical lack of transparency in its waste management. Then, this Note distinguishes the Ocean Rangers veto from vetoes of other statutory program budgets in Alaskan case law. Next, this Note explains Alaska\u27s constitutional protection of initiatives that were enacted directly by voters and argues why Governor Dunleavy\u27s budget likely violated those protections. Finally, this Note postulates how potential litigants seeking to reinstate the Ocean Rangers could bring a case in state court under a citizen-taxpayer theory of standing