7300 research outputs found
Sort by
Internet Famous: Are Online Influencers and Micro-Celebrities Public Figures Under Defamation Law?
Get PDFSocial media and video-sharing sites have introduced the concept of “micro-celebrity,” a person who attains fame – rapidly, and potentially fleetingly – among a niche audience of internet users for doing something colorful. As with anyone who participates in the sometimes sharp-elbowed give-and-take of online discourse, these niche celebrities are increasingly being drawn into controversies that can result in litigation. For nearly 60 years, the Supreme Court’s Sullivan standard has afforded critics an extra measure of breathing space when they comment on the conduct of “public” personalities –people with outsized influence, and the ability to defend themselves effectively through counterspeech. The question courts increasingly will be forced to reckon with is: What does it mean to be “public” in an era when otherwise-obscure people can become “internet famous” overnight
Let’s Not Talk About It: How Courts Apply Constitutional Avoidance and Qualified Immunity as a Shield for Law Enforcement Officers
Get PDFOn the night of December 8, 2015, Nicholas Gilbert was pronounced dead following a tragic incident at the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”) station. Was the cause of death excessive force by SLMPD officers? Well, it is wishful thinking to expect a straightforward answer. It is no secret that recent actions of law enforcement officers have garnered unfettered attention from activist movements across the country. Despite the force of movements like Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police, qualified immunity works to protect law enforcement officers against claims that may arise in their line of duty and consistently prevails in claims of excessive force. This shield of immunity makes it hard for injured parties to get answers about what constitutes excessive force in a court of law
Red-Flag Laws, Civilian Firearms Ownership and Measures of Freedom
Get PDFThis essay provides context for an assessment of a part of the recently-enacted Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--federal legislation funding state red-flag procedures, which allow for seizures of firearms from persons who have not committed crimes.
First, it assesses Maryland’s experience during the first year of implementing these procedures. The essay details computations, extrapolating from Maryland’s first-year experience, showing that adoption of these statutes causes blameless persons to be subject to being killed by the government at a rate comparable to or in excess of the murder rate.
Second, the essay identifies an overlooked impact of this federal legislation. The legislation’s adoption will necessitate courts more favorably consider firearms rights reinstatement petitions filed by criminals with old convictions. That is because Congressional adoption of this legislation is inconsistent with the strongest premise on which courts have heretofore rejected those claims--that courts are not competent to assess whether individuals have a heightened propensity to commit firearms crimes.
Third, politicians admit adoption of the federal statute was a response to calls to “just do something.” As this essay reveals, the resulting legislative spasm arose in the context of public discourse that selectively deemphasizes events highlighting the harms arising from adoption of red-flag laws. Ultimately, of course, the constitutionality the legislative response will be subject to judicial review. Yet concerns that constitutional principles will yield to public pressure are as old as the country itself. James Madison in fact expressed some equivocation as to the desirability of a bill of rights on that basis.
In a paragraph of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 783 (2010), referenced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 n.3 (2022), the Supreme Court noted an absence of authority in which the Court has “refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has disputed public safety implications.” Indeed, living in a society that respects civil rights involves risks that are eliminated by a police state.
Because federal funding of red-flag laws has been triggered by selective public discourse, it is desirable to illuminate, as a counterweight, the salient benefits of the constitutional provision that has been duly adopted and ought to obtain. This essay turns to one approach that may increase the salience of information relevant to contextualizing the judicial inquiry: that the benefits are capable of quantification. This essay expands on the empirical evidence in the law review literature finding a statistically significant relationship between civilian firearms ownership and indices of freedom—higher civilian firearms ownership in a country is associated with greater freedom
In Praise of Reconciliation: the In-Court Settlement as a Global Outreach for Appropriate Dispute Resolution
Get PDFA sense of crisis in the administration of civil justice is widespread. Whether the typical difficulties faced by many countries unfold in excessive costs and delays, they have stark implications for the effectiveness of the procedural systems and access to justice. Several new institutions evolved to deal with this state of crisis. Amongst them, the judicially-led settlement, which has the peculiarity of being an alternative tool, despite being performed in the courtroom, made inroads worldwide. However, the pro-adjudication rhetoric raised and continue to raise severe qualms of parties’ coercion and judicial partiality resulting from the judge’s dual role as conciliator and decider. This Article deals with the matter by aiming for a triple result. First, it is intended to show how the general trend toward in-court settlement highlights the urgency of embodying a new philosophy of distributive justice in civil procedure at a global level. To this effect, rather than securing only substantive justice, the justice systems need to be devoted to dealing with cases justly, equally, and proportionally. Secondly, it will show how advocating settlement does not necessarily mean an efficiency-based claim. On the contrary, it represents a plea for “justice” by resulting in quality-oriented outcomes. Lastly, drawing from the repository of the Continental European civil procedure rules, it will sketch the proper tools to prevent the judges’ promotion of settlement from flowing into an indirectly forced settlement and negatively impacting their impartiality. The relevant outcomes will show how judicially-led settlement represents, at a global level, a form of appropriate (rather than alternative) dispute resolution method
Where’s the First Tee and What’s the Course Record?: The Pros and Cons of Using ADR in the PGA TOUR-LIV Golf Antitrust Suit
Get PDFLIV Golf has taken the professional golfing world by storm. Started by golfing legend Greg Norman and funded by the Saudi Arabia Public Fund, LIV golf has brought a new league with a new format to golf, but it has also drawn its fair share of criticism due to its sources of funding. In response to the rise of LIV Golf, the PGA TOUR, professional golf’s principal league, announced it would suspend any player that signed a contract to play for LIV Golf. Recently, eleven LIV Golf players and LIV Golf itself have filed an antitrust suit against the PGA TOUR. Not only has this suit captured the interest of golf fans worldwide, but it also could serve as a blueprint for future antitrust lawsuits in the sports market
There is No Such Thing as Circuit Law
Get PDFLawyers and judges often talk about “the law of the circuit,” meaning the set of legal rules that apply within a particular federal judicial circuit. Seasoned practitioners are steeped in circuit law, it is said. Some courts have imagined that they confront a choice between applying the law of one circuit or another. In its strong form, this idea of circuit law implies that each circuit creates and interprets its own body of substantive law that is uniquely applicable to disputes that arise within the circuit’s borders.This article argues that the notion of circuit law is nonsensical and undesirable to boot. Federal circuit courts of appeals do not create or apply their own bodies of law. Instead, they interpret and apply a uniform body of federal law, and their interpretations are subject to reversal by the Supreme Court. To conclude otherwise would deeply undermine the animating purpose of federal law: national uniformity.To be sure, courts of appeals issue decisions that can have binding effect not only on the parties before them but also on litigants in future cases, lower courts within the circuit, and even future panels of the same court. But those effects are produced by the rules of horizontal and vertical stare decisis. They do not derive from the existence of a unique body of “circuit law” that must be applied in certain cases, like how federal judges must apply state law in diversity cases. They are just one subset of federal judicial precedents in a larger web. Much of the time, practitioners’ reference to “circuit law” is an understandable shorthand for the body of circuit precedent on an issue.But not always, and that’s where the trouble starts. In recent decades, many courts of appeals have begun conceiving of their body of collective precedent as something more, something like a body of substantive law in the choice-of-law sense. Call this the “myth of circuit law.” The myth has led courts and commentators astray across such diverse areas of law as patents and trademarks, qualified immunity, venue and multidistrict litigation, and administrative law.This article identifies and unpacks the myth of circuit law in three ways. First, it traces the institutional changes that set the stage for the myth of circuit law to take root. Second, it illustrates the mischief the myth has caused and makes the doctrinal case for why the myth is just that. Third, it builds a pair of theoretical arguments for why the myth is inconsistent with our system of judicial federalism
Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Resolution Platform to Resolve Traffic Tickets, Warrants and Please, and Misdemeanors
Get PDFTemporary Access and Permanent Consequences: The Misapplication of Takings Jurisprudence to State Regulations That Benefit the Public Welfare
Get PDFIn 1975, California enacted the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. The Act, along with many regulations to aid in its enforcement, came after years of infighting between property owners and agriculture workers for fair pay and better treatment. Deplorable conditions included hourly wages at $0.90/hour, inadequate working standards such as a lack of toilets and segregated housing, and poor treatment from the growers. Cesar Chavez organized what is now the United Farm Workers labor organization, which helps agriculture workers across the country collectively bargain and secure their rights, fair pay, and adequate working conditions
