14041 research outputs found
Sort by
A Conversation about Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization
No full textProfessors Jonathan Adler and Jessie Hill, both constitutional law experts at CWRU, will discuss the watershed 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization, overruling the constitutional right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade
The Chevron Doctrine
No full textSince the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, this judicial review has been highly deferential: courts must uphold agency interpretations of unclear laws as long as these interpretations are “reasonable.” But the Chevron doctrine faces backlash from constitutional scholars and, now, from Supreme Court justices who insist that courts, not administrative agencies, have the authority to say what the law is. Critics of the administrative state also charge that Chevron deference enables unaccountable bureaucratic power.
In The Chevron Doctrine: It\u27s Rise and Fall and the Future of the Administrative State, Columbia University law professor Thomas Merrill reviews the history and immense consequences of the Chevron doctrine and suggests a way forward. Recognizing that Congress cannot help relying on agencies to carry out laws, Merrill rejects the notion of discarding the administrative state. Instead, he focuses on what should be the proper relationship between agencies and courts in interpreting laws, given the strengths and weaknesses of these institutions. Courts are better at enforcing the rule of law and constitutional values; agencies have more policy expertise and receive more public input. And, unlike courts, agencies are subject to at least some political discipline. The best solution, Merrill suggests, is not of the either–or variety. Neither executive agencies nor courts alone should pick up the slack of our increasingly ineffectual legislature. Speaker\u27s bio
One of the most cited legal scholars in the United States, Thomas Merrill teaches and writes about administrative, constitutional, and property law, among other topics. Merrill’s experience in the public and private sectors informs his pedagogy and research. After clerking for Chief Judge David L. Bazelon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Justice Harry A. Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrill was a deputy solicitor general of the U.S. Department of Justice and an associate at the firm of Sidley & Austin LLP, where he also served as counsel for more than 20 years.
He has written scholarly articles and several Supreme Court amicus briefs on when and how much weight courts should give administrative interpretations of law in different contexts.
He has co-authored (with Henry E. Smith) the casebooks Property: Principles and Policies and The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Property. His seminal journal articles include “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle” on the role of information costs in the structure of property law and “The Origins of the American Public Trust Doctrine: What Really Happened in Illinois Central” about the role of public property rights in the development of the Chicago lakefront. For the 125th anniversary celebration of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrill delivered the annual Hands Lecture, and he spoke on “Learned Hand and Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice.” Lakefront: Public Trust and Private Rights in Chicago (Cornell University Press), his book (with Joseph Kearney) on the history of the Chicago Lakefront, was published in May 2021. Merrill is currently serving as a co-reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Fourth) of Property.
In addition to Columbia, Merrill has served on the faculties of Northwestern Law School and Yale Law School. He is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Bargaining Inequality: Employee Golden Handcuffs and Asymmetric Information
Get PDFInaccurate unicorn firm valuation is a well-documented problem in the finance literature. Employees of these large, privately held companies do not have access to fair market valuation or financial statements and, in many cases, are denied access to such reports, even when requested. Unicorn employees are granted equity as a substantial part of their compensation, however due to the inferior position of employees in comparison to the start-up founders and other investors, information shedding light on the value of their equity grants has been withheld, as apparent in recent practices.
Start-up founders, investors, and their lawyers have systematically abused equity award information asymmetry to their benefit. This Article sheds light on the latest practice that compels employees, who are not yet stockholders, to waive their stockholder inspection rights under Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) Section 220 as a condition to receiving stock options from the company. Perhaps the clearest indication of this new practice is the recent amendment to the National Venture Capital Association legal forms, which is intended to standardize a contractual “waiver of statutory inspection rights.” This waiver is designed to contract around stockholder inspection rights.
This Article puts forward competing arguments and policy considerations for and against such a waiver. It fills the gap in the case law and evaluates whether a contract between the company and its employees, which operates independently and outside the charter or bylaws, can modify or eliminate the mandatory inspection rights expressly set forth in the DGCL. The resolution on this issue will have tremendous influence on corporate law, litigation, and practice
Algorithmic Decision-Making and Discrimination in Developing Countries
Get PDFThis article seeks to investigate how developing countries can ensure that algorithmic decision-making does not leave protected groups in their jurisdictions exposed to unlawful discrimination that would be almost impossible to prevent or prove. The article shows that universally, longstanding methods used to prevent and prove discrimination will struggle when confronted with algorithmic decision-making. It then argues that while some of the proposed solutions to this issue are promising, they cannot be successfully implemented in a vast majority of developing countries because these countries lack the necessary institutional foundation. The key features of this institutional foundation include: (i) a wellrooted culture of transparency and statistical analysis of the disparities faced by protected groups; (ii) vigilant non-government actors attentive to algorithmic decision-making; and (iii) a reasonably robust and proactive executive branch or an independent office to police discrimination. This article argues that antidiscrimination advocates need to pay special attention to these three issues to ensure that the use of algorithms in developing countries is contemplative and avoidant of proven negative and discriminatory outcomes
Talking Foreign Policy: “Blood & Treasure” September 28, 2021 Broadcast
Get PDFTalking Foreign Policy broadcast from Sept. 28, 2021, Blood and Treasure, featuring Michael P. Scharf, Sandra Hodgkinson, Darin E.W. Johnson, Gregory P. Noone, and Milena Sterio. Interviews of international lawyers whose real-life experiences may have helped inspire the CBS TV show
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇