8700 research outputs found
Sort by
Lay Down And Wait For Good News Unless You Are Bowling Alone: A Comparison Of The Identity Crisis Confronting The Japanese Corporate Warrior And The American Corporate Law Firm Associate
Full text link
\u3cem\u3e“The Monster That Ate Jurisprudence”\u3c/em\u3e: The Misfire of Civil RICO in Third-Party Payor Recovery
No full textA law created to dismantle organized crime is now being misused to target pharmaceutical companies. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), originally intended to combat criminal enterprises, has since expanded far beyond its intended purpose. Third-party payors (TTPs), such as health insurers, have increasingly relied on RICO to sue pharmaceutical companies for deceptive marketing practices that allegedly cause significant financial harm. While it is important to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their fraudulent conduct, applying RICO in these cases represents a troublesome overreach. The link between the alleged fraud and TPPs alleged harm is too attenuated to meet RICO’s proximate cause requirement. Moreover, when state consumer protection laws already provide adequate remedies, resorting to RICO blurs its purpose and dilutes its intended function. This misuse of civil RICO highlights the need for legislative reform to prevent further misapplication of the law, while assuring proper protections are in place
“I Like My Eighteenth Century Fresh”: Geofence Warrants, General Warrants, and the Evolving Fourth Amendment
No full textAlmost 250 years ago, our Founding Fathers fought to create a nation free from the confines of British imperial rule. Outrage over governmental intrusions enabled by suspicionless general warrants and writs of assistance galvanized an American polity determined to prevent the abuses that had come to define colonial life. The Fourth Amendment was enacted as a response to executive overreach, and it was deeply informed by the fraught history that led to its adoption—a history that is still used by courts today to define constitutional protections.
In the digital age, the rapid speed of technological innovation has created a precarious environment that threatens the rights the Framers enshrined in our Constitution. Geofencing, an investigative tool that solves crimes by searching all individuals caught within an artificially drawn geographic boundary, challenges traditional Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have disagreed on the constitutional status of geofence warrants, finding it difficult to reconcile their use with history and current precedent.
This Note examines the federal circuit split on geofence warrants between the Fifth and Fourth Circuits that has emerged as a result of their decisions in United States v. Smith and United States v. Chatrie, respectively. It argues that an interpretation faithful to the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment would find the use of geofence warrants unconstitutional and akin to the colonial-age general warrants. In doing so, it examines the seminal historical events that led to the Fourth Amendment’s adoption and traces the way that unreasonable search jurisprudence has developed in response to novel technological advancements. By paying particular attention to Carpenter v. United States, it analyzes the effect this landmark case has had on courts grappling with the constitutionality of geofence warrants. Finally, it concludes by situating the use of geofencing technology within the broader context of capitalism and argues that the erosion of privacy interests in modern society is an inexorable byproduct of America’s capitalist system
Beyond the GENIUS Act: Regulatory Gaps and Operational Challenges in Stablecoin Adoption
No full textThe enactment of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act in July 2025 represents a pivotal shift in the digital asset landscape, providing a federal framework for payment stablecoins and addressing critical issues of transparency and reserve backing. However, this Article argues that the GENIUS Act addresses only a subset of the systemic inefficiencies hindering the transition of stablecoins from speculative instruments to institutional-grade financial tools. Through an analysis of current market data and regulatory gaps, this Article identifies four persistent challenges: fragmented liquidity across geographic corridors, practical spendability constraints rooted in tax and accounting treatment, unresolved legal questions regarding custody and yield-bearing instruments, and a lack of standardized fraud and dispute management infrastructure. Furthermore, it explores the emerging frontier of direct tokenized settlement as a potential successor to the stablecoin model. The Article concludes that while the GENIUS Act is a milestone, achieving systemic financial utility requires addressing these operational and legal deficiencies through continued collaboration between regulators and the private sector
Consumers, Laborers, and Antitrust, oh my! Why Labor Considerations Should be Examined in Antitrust Law Through the Lens of \u3cem\u3eU.S. v. Bertelsmann SE & CO. KGaA\u3c/em\u3e
No full textImagine the disappointing feeling of walking into a bookstore and finding shelves filled with only a narrow and non-diverse selection of titles. This feeling nearly became a reality when the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) won an action blocking a proposed merger between mega publishing houses Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster in the case United States v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA (2021) (“Bertelsmann”). The DOJ claimed that the merger would harm consumers by reducing the diversity of books available and directly harm authors—the creative labor force—by limiting competition for publishing deals and suppressing their compensation. For the first time, the court recognized a “submarket of targeted sellers”—the authors of anticipated top-selling books—and acknowledged how the merger would leave them vulnerable to anticompetitive practices.
This decision marks a notable shift in antitrust enforcement, from its’ traditional focus towards protecting consumers almost exclusively. The Bertelsmann case raises an important and especially timely question: Should antitrust law also protect workers, not just consumers? This Note argues that Bertelsmann reflects a necessary expansion of antitrust analysis to include labor market harms like the harms to authors highlighted in Bertelsmann. By examining the legal framework underpinning antitrust law and comparing Bertelsmann to other labor-centered cases––such as United States v. Bayer AG and the recent class action lawsuit Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc.––this Note advocates for a broader approach to antitrust enforcement––one that protects both consumers and the workers who drive our economy
Tracing the Truth: Strengthening U.S. Food Traceability with Lessons from the Eur. Union
No full textThe United States (U.S.) has made significant progress in improving food traceability, with the FDA’s Final Food Traceability Rule set to take effect in 2026. This long-overdue regulation aims to improve outbreak response and better protect public health. However, major gaps in the U.S. traceability system remain, leaving consumers exposed to preventable foodborne illness outbreaks. Legislative challenges, including H.R. Bill 7563 and provisions in the Fiscal Year 2025 Agriculture Appropriations bill, threaten to delay or weaken these necessary reforms. Compounding these challenges, on August 7, 2025, the FDA proposed extending the compliance deadline for the rule by 30 months, to July 20, 2028. Without standardized lot codes and stronger recordkeeping, regulators will struggle to quickly trace and remove contaminated food, increasing the risk of widespread illness.
Unlike the U.S., the European Union (EU) has a more comprehensive and proactive traceability system. The EU requires tracking for all food and feed, enforces strict recordkeeping, and runs a centralized outbreak response network through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). These measures have been key in controlling outbreaks, reducing financial losses, and maintaining consumer confidence. Meanwhile, the U.S. still relies on a fragmented system that slows outbreak response and creates regulatory blind spots.
This Note argues that Congress must reject any attempts to weaken the FDA’s Final Traceability Rule and instead take steps to strengthen the nation’s food safety system. The U.S. should expand traceability beyond high-risk foods, create a real-time outbreak response system like the EU’s RASFF, and simplify oversight by placing it under a single federal agency. These reforms will improve public health, reduce recall costs, and bring the U.S. in line with global food safety standards