46622 research outputs found
Sort by
The Charter of the City of Durango, Colorado
Get PDFhttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-municipal-codes/1047/thumbnail.jp
How to Search the Colorado Session Laws Collection In Colorado Law’s Scholarly Commons
Get PDFDirections for how to search the Colorado Session Laws collection in Scholarly Commons.https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10352/thumbnail.jp
Journal of the Senate State of Colorado Seventy-Fourth General Assembly Second Extraordinary Session at Denver, the State Capitol
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/colorado-house-and-senate-journals/1609/thumbnail.jp
Facts on Trial: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA and the Battle over Mailed Medication Abortion
Get PDFPolitics Before Pensions: How New ESG Rules Expose Public Pension System Vulnerabilities
Get PDFAs some of the largest institutional investors in the United States, public pension funds wield considerable power over investment decisions. A recent trend highlights this extraordinary power: state pension funds have started exploiting their retirees’ pensions to force investment companies to invest in accordance with their respective states’ political priorities. Nowhere is this trend more obvious than in the environmental, social, and governance field. On one hand, states like Maine have passed legislation prohibiting public pension funds from investing in fossil fuels companies. On the other hand, states like Texas have passed laws prohibiting state entities from doing business with companies that oppose the fossil fuel and gun manufacturing industries. Investment companies operating across state lines are therefore caught between a rock and a hard place: continue investing in fossil fuels and risk antagonizing liberal states like Maine or divest from fossil fuels and lose business from conservative states like Texas. Pension funds can exploit public retirees’ funds for political ends because of a subtle fiduciary orientation surrounding public pension funds. Whereas private pension funds are governed by uniform federal laws that center fiduciary duties around pension plan participants and beneficiaries, public pension funds are governed by a patchwork of state laws that center fiduciary duties around the funds themselves. Thus, states are free to tailor their own pension fund investment rules as they see fit, sometimes at the expense of retirees. The result is an assortment of fifty different legal systems, piled on top of the recent trend toward politicizing investment decisions. Often, as the cases of Texas and Maine show, investment companies will find themselves unable to simultaneously comply with the various public pension fund requirements from state to state. Moreover, because state treasurers exercise almost unbridled discretion over investment allocations, they can all but freely abuse pensions funds in pursuit of political ends. With trillions of dollars under management, retirees stand to lose the most. This Note argues that public pension investment laws need urgent reform and standardization to prevent sacrificing retirees’ financial security in service of political priorities. To do so, state legislatures should pass laws modeled after the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which governs private pension plans. Such standardization will ease the burden of compliance for investment companies and investment advisers while simultaneously forcing pension fund managers to prioritize retirees’ pecuniary gains
Creative Jurisprudence: The Paradox of Free Speech Absolutism
Get PDFGovernments often seek to restrict speech on the basis of its content, navigating the ever-complex terrain between constitutional freedoms and regulatory interests. While the United States judiciary has historically endeavored to balance competing constitutional questions and government interests when scrutinizing content-based speech regulations, recent trends signify a troubling shift. The judiciary has recently embraced what this Article refers to as free speech absolutism, whereby it sidesteps the longstanding, intricate process of balancing constitutional values and public interests, in favor of an unequivocal endorsement of speech rights. This simplified judicial strategy proceeds first with an acknowledgment of the paramount importance of free speech, then shuns any form of judicial scrutiny or balancing test, instead ruling categorically in favor of speechclaimants. Such a shift represents a departure from traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, effectively ignoring tests that weigh the right to free expression against other critical constitutional values, including equality, equal protection, and nondiscrimination.
This Article critically examines the choices by the judiciary, specifically the United States Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. Elenis, to adopt this free speech absolutist position. It documents the evolution of this trend, critiques its underpinnings, and proposes refinements that, if implemented, would help ensure the Court’s approach to content-based speech regulation is principled, sighted for valid government interests, and attuned to a necessary consideration of the broader spectrum of constitutional values. By doing so, it seeks to reinvigorate a more balanced and comprehensive judicial methodology that recognizes the multifaceted nature of constitutional rights and the importance of their equitable application
