16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Library Occupancy
No full textA door counter at the entrance to the Wolf Law Library ensures that the space does not become over-crowded.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/covidimages/1010/thumbnail.jp
A Brief History of Judical Appointments from the Last 50 Years Through the Trump Administration
Get PDFThank you so much for that kind introduction. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am going to talk about the confirmation process generally. There is no better place to talk about it than here. Let me begin with some numbers and statistics, before I turn to the main thrust of my talk, to give some context as to what recent Presidents have done with respect to judicial appointments. President Trump has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett of Appeals; twenty-nine so far have been confirmed. The Senate Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, has already said they will all be confirmed assuming he has the votes. So for comparison purposes, let’s use forty-two as our number. As for District Court nominees, he has made over 109. So that is over 150 judicial nominations in less than two years
Safeguarding Fair Use Through First Amendment\u27s Asymmetric Constitutional Fact Review
Get PDFThis Article proposes a novel procedural safeguard for copyright fair use. Two courts recently overturned jury verdicts on the question of fair use. In Corbello v. De Vito, the trial court overturned a jury verdict that had rejected a fair use defense. In Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdictthat had found in favor of a defendant\u27s fair use defense. While this Article offers a new perspective on these cases, the main goal is more ambitious: a theoretical framework to heighten protection for the free expression interests of users of copyrighted works. Specifically, appellate courts should apply an asymmetric review of fair use determinations as a constitutional fact. And as a constitutional fact, fair use determinations should be reviewed de novo only when the free-speech-claimant does not prevail in the lower court.
This is the first work to (1) offer a theoreticaljustification and limiting principle for constitutional fact review and (2) extend this framework to copyright fair use. The thesis relies on the following three propositions. First, constitutional fact review should be a one-way, asymmetric review, rather than a two-way, symmetric review. De novo review of constitutional facts should only apply when the free-speechclaimant does not prevail in the lower court. The circuit courts of appeals are split on this issue, and for over three decades the Supreme Court has declined to resolve the split. Second, the copyright fair use analysis embeds First Amendment interests. By embedding First Amendment issues within copyright fair use and denying independent First Amendment scrutiny, the Court has de facto constitutionalized the fair use inquiry. Fair use is thus a constitutional fact. And lastly, as a proxy for First Amendment interests, fair use should receive added protections ofindependent appellate review-like other speech-implicating cases.
Specifically, this Article argues copyright fair use determinations should receive asymmetric, independent appellate review of fair use as a constitutional fact.
The question of the appropriate standard of appellate review for fair use decisions is underexplored and undertheorized. Other scholars have debated whether independent, constitutional fact review should be applied symmetrically or asymmetrically . Others have recognized that fair use protects core free speech interests. And others have recognized that standards ofreview in copyright cases matter. But no one has put all of the aforementioned pieces together to propose the heightened procedural protection of constitutional fact review in fair use cases to protect users\u27 First Amendment interests. This Article fills that gap
Duties, Disclosure, and Discord: Necessity to Resolve Circuit Split and Certainty Leidos Could Have Clarified for Litigation Strategy and Risk Allocation
Get PDFSecurities litigation is a complex, specialized, and detailed practice of the law that depends on the expertise of courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. From its inception, the securities laws, namely the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provided a baseline expectation and prescription for the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules to fulfill the organic statute’s demands. Through time, technology, and the law generally, the securities laws have expanded significantly, not only asking, but also requiring, the courts to answer questions never contemplated by the original drafters of the laws to guide this industry.
This Note purports to explain the outcome of a case the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the reach of a promulgated regulation. Namely, whether Item 303 of Regulation S-K permits a Rule 10b-5 action for securities fraud through omitted statements. Because the parties themselves dismissed the lawsuit before the Supreme Court could actually answer the question, based on the circuit split and the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence and outlook with the securities laws, this Note will suggest the impact Leidos could have had on the industry and the implications generally
United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C.
No full textThis summer, I will be working for the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. USIP\u27s work is focused on conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution around the globe. The organization pursues stability, peace, and the rule of law, emphasizing the core values of respect, adaptability, partnership, and accountability. USIP believes conflicts can be resolved without violence and that sustainable peace strengthens the national security interests of the United States. I will be contributing research to one of USIP\u27s Justice and Security Dialogue teams this summer
International Bridges to Justice in China
No full textThis summer, I will be working remotely with International Bridges to Justice in China. The practice of criminal defense law is often regarded as a high-risk profession in China and as a result, an incredibly large number of criminal defendants remain unrepresented at trial. By providing remote assistance to the China Office of IBJ, I will be working alongside legal aid attorneys, members from the criminal community, and government institutions to push for sustainable reforms in the criminal justice system
Pinkcollar Employment Agency in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
No full textThis summer, I will be working remotely with the Pinkcollar Employment Agency located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Pinkcollar is the first ethical recruiting agency in Malaysia, cofounded by William & Mary Law School alum Elaine Sim. The agency’s groundbreaking ethical employment model combats human trafficking and upholds domestic workers\u27 rights by eliminating debt bondage. I will be in charge of constructing a transparent and equitable termination process and writing educational materials for domestic workers, informing them of their legal rights
Measuring the Impact of Access to Justice Programs: An Assessment Tool for Funders and Policymakers
No full textAcross the fifty states and the nation, many organizations have implemented a variety of programs to reduce the access-to-justice gap. The result is a widely varying patchwork of capabilities that provide different services and solutions in very different amounts that do not necessarily or even usually align with the problems that the target populations face. This paper proposes more of an “engineering” approach by introducing an analytical tool for organizations working on closing the access gap to estimate the potential impact of proposed solutions.
The tool can be used to: 1) assess the magnitude of an access problem that could be solved by a specific capability; 2) identify strategic planning about hurdles and barriers that must be surmounted or reduced to achieve program objectives; and 3) prioritize the tasks that must be performed and the capabilities that must be implemented to close the targeted gaps. The sub-equations in the tool can also be used to systematically think through steps to be taken for successful implementation.
This abstract has been taken from the authors\u27 introduction to the report
