2622 research outputs found
Sort by
PREVIEW—Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation: Whether Alaska Native Corporations are Eligible for CARES Act Relief Payments
Full text linkThe Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in this matter on Monday, April 19, 2021, telephonically, at 10 a.m. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar will likely argue for the United States Department of Treasury. Paul D. Clement will likely appear for the Petitioner Alaska Native Village Corporation Association. Riyaz A. Kanji will likely argue for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, and Jeffrey S. Rasmussen will likely appear for the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
PREVIEW; State v. Smith: \u3cem\u3eConstitutionality of Lifetime Satellite Location Monitoring Sentencing Conditions\u3c/em\u3e
Full text link\u3cem\u3eMontana’s House Bill 113: Knocking on the Door of Youth Transgender Dignity\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkWater Law in a Nutshell 6th edition
No full textThe new edition adds dozens of recent decisions and key statutory changes. Virtually every principal case in the leading casebooks is cited or discussed, making this book an excellent aid for students in any water law course. The revised edition deals with changes in evolving areas like groundwater-surface water conflicts, public recreational uses, instream flow protection, federal water development, takings claims, and water access and equity.https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/faculty_books/1014/thumbnail.jp
\u3cem\u3eState Constitutional Rights Be Damned: Reconsidering the Indifference to State Constitutional Violations in Federal Criminal Proceedings\u3c/em\u3e
Full text link
Political Fair Use
Full text linkDuring election season, politicians and political campaigns often use pop culture or iconic works, such as viral memes or popular songs, to help convey their political messages—often without authorization from the copyright owners of these works. As politics and politicians become ever more divisive, these unauthorized political uses of copyrighted works can be particularly objectionable to copyright owners. In addition to offending their political or moral inclinations, artists and copyright owners frequently claim that these political uses infringe their copyrights. Politicians and campaigns argue that their right to use copyrighted works for political purposes is protected by the First Amendment and that such political uses are presumptively fair use. This Article examines unauthorized political uses of copyrighted works under copyright law’s fair use doctrine to demonstrate that, in fact, both sides are correct. Through a series of case studies, this Article identifies a pattern in political fair use decisions: in disputes arising from the unauthorized political uses of copyrighted works, courts appear to implicitly modify their analyses and balancing of the fair use factors under section 107 of the Copyright Act in order to both accommodate the import of political speech and to respect copyright owners’ dignity and rights to control use of their expressive works. Under the courts’ political fair use analysis, one determination—the nature of the original copyrighted work—seems to exert an outsized influence on the determination of all four fair use factors, permitting certain unauthorized political uses of copyrighted works to appear presumptively fair. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s guidance to courts not to subject copyright to independent First Amendment review nor to expand copyright’s fair use doctrine in infringement cases involving political or public figures. It also disregards certain copyright owners’ right to control use of their work but permits other copyright owners the right to curtail infringing behavior that causes no market harm. This Article highlights these concerns and explores the normative implications of political fair use on litigation certainty and predictability, incentives to create political expressive works, and the balance between respecting creators’ dignity and rights to control use of their expressive works with guaranteeing free and open discussion of politicians and political candidates
PREVIEW— Montana and Wyoming v. Washington: The Commerce Clause and the Clean Water Act Collide Over Coal Exports
Full text linkThe Supreme Court of the United States has not scheduled oral arguments for this matter. In October 2020, the Court asked for the federal government’s views on the case but has not yet decided whether it will exercise its jurisdiction over the challenge
\u3cem\u3eCooperative Federalism in Consumer Finance: Remarks at the James R. Browning Symposium on Consumer Law in the 21st Century at the Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana, September 25, 2020\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkMontana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality
No full textHecla Mining Company and its subsidiaries want to develop two industrial silver and copper mines––the Montanore and Rock Creek projects––beneath northwest Montana’s Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. Environmental organizations, in just one of a series of legal challenges to protect high-quality designated resource waters and unique bull trout and grizzly bear habitat, brought an action seeking a declaration that Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s issuance of a permit for the Montanore Project was unlawful. The Montana Supreme Court, in a four-member majority, affirmed the district court’s vacatur and remanded the case to the state agency for further proceedings. The decision is celebrated by environmental groups as a victory to ensure that mines are permitted under Montana’s contemporary water quality standards and nondegradation policy. However, the Court likely created an unclear test to determine a mine’s operational life