27127 research outputs found
Sort by
Glossip v. State of Oklahoma: Brief of Federal Courts Scholars as \u3cem\u3eAmici Curiae\u3c/em\u3e in Support of Petitioner
No full textAmici are law professors who teach and write about the federal courts, habeas corpus, and the relationship between federal and state law. A list of amici is attached as Appendix A. Amici sign this brief in their individual capacities and not on behalf of their institutions; institutional affiliations are provided solely for identification purposes
Medical-Legal Partnerships Reinvigorate Systems Lawyering Using an Upstream Approach
No full textThe upstream framework presented in public health and medicine considers health problems from a preventive perspective, seeking to understand and address the root causes of poor health. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) have demonstrated the value of this upstream framework in the practice of law and engage in upstream lawyering by utilizing systemic advocacy to address root causes of injustices and health inequities. This article explores upstreaming and its use by MLPs in reframing legal practice
The Origins of the Legal Imagination
No full textI want to say at the outset that I feel honored beyond imagining at this celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of my book, and all the more because it is you who have set this up—so many beloved friends over the years and others who will surely become friends. I thank you deeply.
As I wondered about what I might say this morning, I thought perhaps you would be interested in where this truly odd book, with its 986 pages of readings and questions, came from
Chevron\u27s 51 Imperfect Solutions.
No full textIn June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the judicial deference federal agencies previously received for their statutory interpretations, overturning the Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. While Chevron was never binding on state courts, where the balance of powers and state constitutions may require different or no deference to agencies, numerous states have adopted Chevron deference, Skidmore weight, or similar deference regimes for judicial review of agency legal interpretations. Despite these developments, little scholarly attention has been paid to how and why states have developed administrative law’s deference doctrines, how the doctrines have changed over time, or how they may further evolve in light of Chevron’s demise at the federal level
What Do Consumers Understand About Predispute Arbitration Agreements? An Empirical Investigation
No full textThe results of a survey of 1,071 adults in the United States reveal that most consumers do not pay attention to, let alone understand, arbitration clauses in their everyday lives. The vast majority of survey respondents (over 97%) report having opened an account with a company that requires disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration (e.g., Netflix, Hulu, Cash App, a phone or cable company), yet most are unaware that they have, in fact, agreed to mandatory arbitration (also known as “forced arbitration”). Indeed, over 99% of respondents who think they have never entered into an arbitration agreement likely have done so. Over 92% of respondents report that they have never based a decision to use a product or service on whether the terms and conditions contain an arbitration agreement. When prompted, they largely endorse the following reasons: they were unaware of the arbitration clause, they did not read the terms and conditions, and they thought they had no choice but to agree to mandatory arbitration. Moreover, many respondents presume that if a dispute arises, they will still be able to access the public courts, notwithstanding that they agreed to the terms and conditions. Consumers are largely unaware of opportunities to opt out of mandatory arbitration. They generally do not pay attention to or retain information about the steps required to opt out successfully (e.g., contacting the company within a specified time period). Generally, consumers are unaware that companies like Cash App and Venmo (mobile payment systems utilized by nearly 60% of respondents) allow customers to opt out of mandatory arbitration if they act within a limited time period. Among the minority of respondents (21%) who stated that they had been given an opportunity to opt out, vanishingly few could name any of the steps required to opt out successfully. When presented with a run-of-the-mill contract, of the type consumers routinely encounter, most respondents did not take notice of the arbitration clause. Less than 5% of respondents could recall that the contract they were shown had said anything at all about arbitration. Furthermore, most consumers misperceive the consequences of signing a predispute arbitration agreement. Most mistakenly believe that, after agreeing to terms and conditions mandating binding arbitration, they can still choose to settle their dispute in court, have a jury decide their case, join a class action, and appeal a decision made based on a legal error. For instance, less than 5% of respondents correctly reported that they could neither appeal an erroneous decision to another arbitrator (or set of arbitrators) nor start all over again in court. Less than 1% of respondents correctly understood the full significance of the arbitration agreement, as indicated by their responses to questions about whether they retained the rights to sue, have a jury decide their case, access the public courts, and appeal a decision based on a legal error. In summary, consumers are generally unaware of arbitration clauses, and they tend to hold mistaken beliefs about how arbitration agreements affect consumers’ procedural rights
The Triumph of Tax Textualism
No full textIn Varian Medical Systems, the Tax Court held in a unanimously reviewed opinion that the taxpayer was entitled to take a section 245A deduction for an amount treated as a dividend under section 78. Section 78 provides that deemed paid foreign taxes are treated as dividends received for foreign tax credit purposes, thus grossing up the amount of the dividend by the foreign taxes attributable to it before granting the FTC. This provision is needed because otherwise the taxpayer would enjoy both a deduction and a credit for the same foreign tax. Section 245A, however, eliminates the tax on the amount eligible for the dividends received deduction so that the section 78 gross-up is not needed and should not be a dividend for section 245A purposes. But Congress made a mistake in setting the effective dates so that, for 2018, the text of the statute permits the section 78 gross-up to be a dividend for section 245A purposes. The IRS responded by modifying reg. section 1.78-1 in 2019 to stat
Building the Gateway: Why the Two Pillars Need Each Other.
No full textThere is a reason the OECD proposed two pillars for its gateway to a better tax future. A gateway requires both pillars, and neither can stand without the other. Pillar 2 is a fait accompli, but it needs countries to implement Pillar 1 as well because in the absence of a clear sourcing rule there is no limit to countries implementing the Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax (QDMTT), which would turn off the other parts of Pillar 2 and potentially result in double taxation. Pillar 1 is not going forward in the absence of a Multilateral Tax Convention (MLC), but it can be implemented unilaterally, although that would require overriding existing tax treaties
A Global Wealth Tax?
No full textMitt Romney famously said during his 2012 presidential campaign that “corporations are people.” Mindy Herzfeld’s column comparing the proposed 2 percent global wealth tax on billionaires with the corporate minimum tax (pillar 2) raises the opposite question: Are people like corporations for tax purposes? I would say no, for several reasons
Can Investment Treaties Defeat Pillar 2?
No full textIn their excellent recent Tax Notes International article, “Using Investment Treaties to Prevent Pillar 2’s Revocation of Promised Tax Incentives,” Javier Rubinstein, Lauren Friedman, and Tamsin Parzen make an interesting new argument about the interaction between bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and pillar 2. They argue that an investor benefiting from an existing BIT can rely on it to prevent the imposition of a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT) even without resorting to treaty arbitration. This argument is problematic, however, because it does not fully address the likely reaction of other countries that are not party to the BIT
Tossing Sand in the Regulatory Gears: Hurdles to Policy Progress in the Supreme Court
No full textIn the last few years, the Supreme Court has been a source of seismic change. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which had protected the right to abortion for nearly fifty years. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court abandoned so-called Chevron deference to particular categories of administrative agency interpretations, a doctrine viewed as bedrock for over forty years. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 ruling validating independent multi-member commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Communications Commission, may soon join the others on the chopping block