bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Fulfilling the pledge : securing industrial democracy for American workers in a digital economy
No full textMillions of non-union workers want unionization, but our current labor-management relations law conspires to deny them meaningful opportunities to secure collective workplace representation. The resulting low rates of collective bargaining impose economic, political, and social costs on us all. In Fulfilling the Pledge, Roger Hartley addresses the plight of American workers, who face a grim, uncertain future, as the digital workplace reshapes the hierarchical post–World War II industrial relations system that once gave workers a voice. Through empirical evidence and the lens of law and policy, Hartley examines what industrial sociologists call the chronic “representation gap” and clarifies how a wide-ranging movement could build a vocal constituency for the congressional enactment of labor law reform.
The pledge made in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act to encourage establishment of industrial democracy—where workers possess a voice in their places of work—remains unfulfilled. Speaking to policymakers, scholars, historians, and the average citizen, Fulfilling the Pledge makes a compelling case for collective workplace representation that serves the greater good, even as American labor relations law continues to undermine collective bargaining by workers and becomes an increasingly significant political and social issue.https://scholarship.law.edu/fac_books/1148/thumbnail.jp
North American Energy in the Crossfire
No full textNorth America is the beating heart of global energy markets un-dergoing a terrible energy crisis that threatens to upend both the economy and global security. The clearest path out of this global crisis is increasing energy supplies from North America, which can restore energy security and drive a transition to cleaner energy sources. The U.S., Mexico, and Canada have abundant and varied resources to surmount this challenge but are in dire need of stronger cooperation across borders, and between private and public actors to achieve this goal. This Article shows how energy law changes in the U.S. and Mexico present under-studied dangers to cross-border en-ergy trade and sets an agenda for legal reform to enable mutually beneficial fuel and power trade.The United States has recently emerged from history’s biggest oil boom, and along with its neighbors, is becoming the crossroads for an increasingly global two-way trade in oil and gas. The U.S., Mexico, and Canada are major global energy producers and consum-ers, and their different balance of products creates important trading opportunities. The United States and Mexico, in particular, have much to gain from expanded energy trade. Yet there is an increasing danger that this potential will be squandered. Growing movements against eminent domain, infrastructure permits, and energy exports in the United States, and moves to re-nationalize the energy sector in Mexico are making energy companies increasingly wary of investing in the future of U.S.-Mexico energy trade. Ironically, politicians on both sides of the border accuse each other of being the source of un-certainty for the future of the North American energy industry. This Article uncovers the fault lines undermining North America’s energy potential and proposes principles for an energy agreement that could be adopted either by the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) partners or by direct negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico to secure the benefits of increased energy trade and increase cooperation in energy and climate policy
Why Outlaw Laws?: An Argument For A Probationary Period For Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems Under Meaningful Human Control.
No full text
Anthony Parker v. Lehigh County Court Domestic Relation
No full textUSDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani
Do Public Accommodations Laws Compel “What Shall Be Orthodox”?: The Role of Barnette in 303 Creative LLC v. Eleni
No full textThis article addresses the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s embrace, in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, of a First Amendment objection to state public accommodations laws that the Court avoided in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: such laws compel governmental orthodoxy. These objections invoke West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette \u27s celebrated language: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. They also cite Barnette\u27s progeny, including Wooley v. Maynard and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. Business owners, their lawyers, and judges who have invoked these cases argue that state public accommodations laws requiring that businesses not discriminate based on sexual orientation in providing goods and services compel both speech and silence. In 303 Creative, Justice Gorsuch\u27s majority (6- 3) opinion quotes the beginning of Barnette\u27s fixed star passage but adapts it: the fixed star becomes the principle that the government may not interfere with \u27an uninhibited marketplace of ideas. Gorsuch moves from the public school room in which a state law compelled Jehovah\u27s Witness children to salute the flag, despite their religious beliefs to the commercial marketplace, but gives little guidance about how broadly the protection of creative expression in this marketplace of ideas will extend. While Justice Gorsuch situates the Court\u27s protection of website designer Lorie Smith against compelled speech and orthodoxy in the commercial marketplace as the latest in a series of courageous First Amendment decisions by the Court protecting individuals against an encroaching state, Justice Sotomayor\u27s dissent excoriates the majority for departing from the long history of the Court courageously defending citizenship-expanding antidiscrimination laws against backlash and repeated First Amendment challenges. This article argues that 303 Creative\u27s use of Barnette extracts it from its wartime, antitotalitarian context, ignores crucial distinctions drawn in Barnette, and (as Justice Sotomayor\u27s 303 Creative dissent warns) \u27trivializes the freedom protected in Barnette, \u27 while also undermining public accommodations laws. The article also considers the recent invocation of Barnette and its progeny to challenge other forms of governmental regulation, including state regulation of crisis pregnancy centers and state bans on conversion therapy
Testing the Limits of Virtual Compliance: Website Accessibility, Tester Plaintiffs, and Article III Standing Under the ADA
No full textFederal courts have split in determining whether “tester” plaintiffs bringing suit under the ADA assert the requisite injury in fact necessary for Article III standing. These “website accessibility testers” allege that defendants’ websites do not make certain information available to disabled persons in violation of Title III of the ADA and one of its implementing regulations. This split presents an excellent opportunity to clarify which informational and stigmatic harms qualify as injuries in fact for Article III standing purposes. This Note argues that ADA website accessibility testers cannot obtain standing under current law. Neither the text of the ADA nor the Supreme Court’s recent standing decisions support standing for website accessibility testers. However, this Note also suggests that a statutory addition to the ADA in the form of a qui tam provision may provide a legislative workaround that would enable testers to proactively enforce Title III
MMU: 03/04/24–03/10/24
No full textThis Week @ NDLS
Mass Times
Commons Daily Menu
General Announcement
Sacred Lands: Apache Stronghold v. United States of America
No full textMonday, March 4, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 1140
Join the Native American Law Students Association and Notre Dame Law School\u27s Religious Liberty Initiative for a discussion on religious liberty protections for Oak Flat, an Indigenous sacred site being threatened with destruction. Professor Stephanie Barclay, faculty director of the Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative, will lead the discussion. Chick-fil-A will be provided.
Professor Barclay participated in oral argument before the en banc Ninth Circuit in Pasadena, California last March, where she represented as amici the National Congress of American Indians, an Apache tribal elder, and other groups that protect Native American cultural heritage and rights.
Apache Stronghold v. United States was one of the first cases that the Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic supported when the Clinic was newly established in the 2020-21 academic year. The Apache and other tribes have gone to the sacred land for generations to worship, pray, and conduct religious ceremonies.
Co-sponsors: Native American Law Students Association Notre Dame Law School\u27s Religious Liberty Initiativehttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1815/thumbnail.jp
