8700 research outputs found
Sort by
History of Mexico’s Tax Regime: A Haphazard Journey
Full text linkMexico’s tax regime can best be described as haphazard and uncoordinated, as indirect levies were often assessed to satisfy short-term needs, irrespective of the economic capacity to pay of the local population. When compared to other members of the OECD, Mexico reports a relatively low tax-to-GDP ratio. This may be attributable to the vast presence of small to medium size companies conducting business in the informal market, the comparatively minor percentage of individuals and companies that regularly pay tax, and proliferation of tax benefits historically enjoyed by the wealthy.
This Article covers the more salient features of Mexican tax legislation since the conquest by Spain in 1521 until the nation obtained its full independence three hundred year later, and all throughout the political and economic upheavals the young republic experienced right up until the end of the twentieth century. Levies enacted by the Spanish Crown to extract revenues are examined, along with indirect assessments on consumption promulgated after independence. Also addressed are alternative levies enacted since the early twentieth century that failed to raise revenues and/or were administratively burdensome, ultimately leading to their extinction.
The author recommends streamlining Mexico’s tax system by expanding the base, and eliminating the various exclusions, preferences, and credits currently available under the income tax law. By increasing revenues from income tax, the federal government should be better able to reduce indirect levies on the sale of goods and services. Simultaneously, political leaders should lessen the country’s century-old dependence on non-fiscal revenues derived from oil production
Is Florida at War with the Mouse or Free Speech: Understanding the Dissolution of Disney’s Reedy Creek and the Threat to Corporate First Amendment Rights
Full text linkOn April 22, 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida Senate Bill 4C, which stripped Walt Disney World of its status as an “independent special district,” with its Reedy Creek Improvement District. The legislation was passed in response to the corporation’s public criticism of the Parental Rights in Education Act. After months of speculation regarding the solution to the grave tax and debt consequences of the bill, the Governor signed Florida House Bill 9B to reinstate the district under a State elected board and under a new name—the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
This Comment delves into the longstanding history between the Walt Disney corporation and the State of Florida, outlining the unique powers that Disney acquired through its independent special district status. The once symbiotic relationship between the Sunshine State and the “Most Magical Place on Earth” has now sparked immense public attention for not so enchanting reasons.
In the midst of the feud between one of the nation’s largest corporations and one of its largest emerging political leaders, the question turns to a principle deeply ingrained in American history—the First Amendment. This Comment analyzes the series of Florida legislation following Disney’s public condemnation of the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” and determines whether the consequences could lead policymakers and courts to turn a blind eye to retaliatory acts on large corporations or if the action was necessary to address corporate power disparities
Secrecy on Steroids: How Overzealous State Confidentiality Laws Expose Leakers and Whistleblowers to Retaliatory Prosecution
Full text linkIt is well-documented that the federal government has a secrecy problem. Thousands of times a year, inconsequential documents are needlessly stamped “classified,” which can mean prison for anyone who leaks them. But the addiction to secrecy doesn’t stop with the Pentagon. State public-records statutes are riddled with their own local version of “classified information” that puts people at risk of prosecution even for well-intentioned whistleblowing.
The problem is particularly acute in Florida, where one of the state’s highest-ranking elected officials spent almost two years as the target of a criminal investigation for releasing records about an unresolved sexual harassment complaint against a state regulator. While the case was ultimately closed without charges, merely being the target of a prolonged criminal investigation can itself be profoundly intimidating—particularly for low-level public employees who lack the resources to defend themselves.
This Article describes the results of a research project by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida, which found more than 400 categories of records that state law treats as “confidential,” meaning that a person who releases the record is potentially committing a crime. These categories go well beyond the narrow handful of sensitive documents that everyone agrees cannot safely be publicly disseminated, such as medical records, and encompass entirely mundane information, including the identities of donors to performing-arts venues, or the names of horses that are banned from racing.
The needless proliferation of confidentiality laws creates an intimidating climate for whistleblowers. The fear of a retaliatory prosecution is no illusion: The authors examine a recent Texas case, Villarreal v. City of Laredo, in which a journalistic blogger was arrested and charged with violating a state confidentiality law analogous to Florida’s, demonstrating that overzealous use of “state classification” can empower government officials to make selective, viewpoint-based enforcement decisions. The authors conclude that confidential designation should be applied advisedly to only the narrowest subset of information that would genuinely cause harm if disclosed—and even then, only after the public\u27s countervailing interest in transparency is considered
Obtaining Trademark Registration for Marks Containing Political Commentary: A Look into \u3cem\u3eVidal v. Elster\u3c/em\u3e
Full text linkFor decades, courts have struggled with balancing trademark law with the First Amendment—specifically with cases challenging the denial of trademark registration of certain marks. Congress codified trademark registration through the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946. This statute outlines the registration process and expands the rights of trademark owners. In recent years, a string of cases have ruled certain provisions of the Lanham Act that bar certain marks from registration unconstitutional.
Currently under review by the Supreme Court, the case Vidal v. Elster involves an applicant who was denied trademark registration for his mark “Trump Too Small” for use on t-shirts. After submitting his registration application, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) denied registration of the mark and explained that it was barred by the “living individual” clause of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act. This clause prevents registration of marks that contain the name of a living individual without that individual’s consent. Elster did not have Trump’s consent to use his name. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 2(c) was unconstitutional as-applied in this circumstance because it violated Elster’s First Amendment right to criticize political figures without government interference. The Federal Circuit’s narrow holding did not find the entirety of Section 2(c) unconstitutional, but many scholars see the road that lies ahead. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision is pending on the matter. Ultimately, this case highlights complex nuances of trying to obtain trademark registration over marks containing political commentary, and the consequences of this pending decision could potentially erode the constitutionality of other trademark doctrines in the United States
Race, Religion, and Reconciliation: Building a Mosaic of Latine Faith from the Margins
Full text link
A History of Corporate Law Federalism in the Twentieth Century
Full text linkThis Article describes the emergence of corporate law federalism across a long twentieth century. The period begins with New Jersey\u27s successful initiation of charter competition in 1888 and ends with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The federalism in question describes the interrelation of state and federal regulation of corporate internal affairs. This Article takes a positive approach, pursuing no normative bottom line. It makes six observations: (1) the federalism describes a division of subject matter, with internal affairs regulated by the states and securities issuance and trading regulated by the federal government; (2) the federalism is an artifact of history rather than an instantiation or reflection of a theory of government; (3) competition for charters at the state level resulted in a stable, as opposed to a volatile legal regime; (4) just as economic contractions lead to new regulatory constraints on the conduct of business, so do economic expansions lead to increased regulatory slack; (5) even though regulation on the ground never fully adhered to the subject matter division, the division became increasingly salient over time, taking on positive normative implications; and (6) federal lawmakers came to adhere to a norm of noninterference in state regulation of internal affairs
Politicizing Antisemitism amidst Today\u27s Educational Culture Wars
Full text linkThe traditional narrative of American Jewry emphasizes American exceptionalism with respect to antisemitism. But there have been clear signs of a resurgence of public antisemitism in the United States even before the massive rise in antisemitic expression and incidents associated with the Israel-Hamas war of fall 2023.
One of the notable aspects of the rise and normalization of antisemitic expression is the deployment of antisemitism as a political tool. For example, in addition to Democrats and Republicans accusing each other of complicity in antisemitism, both federal policy since the Trump era and state anti-antisemitism legislation have targeted campus antisemitism in a conservative attack on progressive ideology in education. This Article argues that the campus-focused federal anti-antisemitism initiatives are not likely to be particularly effective in practice in reducing antisemitism and could well backfire generating objections from both free speech libertarians and progressives. As for state laws prohibiting antisemitism in the educational context, the Article shows-through an analysis of Florida legislation-not only how much more extensive such enactments can be than their counterparts in federal policy, but also how easily critical Jewish studies can be swept into the illiberal prohibitions on antiracist education that states have adopted. Thus, state-based turns to educational censorship can blunt, undermine, and eclipse anti-antisemitism initiatives.
Ultimately, viewing antisemitism through a purely political lens de-historicizes it and risks leaching it of its moral valence. Even on the political front, though, the current debates between Republicans and Democrats on antisemitism ignore the elephant in the room. Conservative politicians should stop legitimizing white supremacy through expression and association, and progressive leaders should acknowledge the critical role of antisemitism in organizing an insidious and increasingly confident white nationalist movement. That a Trump victory in the 2024 presidential election is even conceivable is an object lesson in why it is necessary to face up to the role of antisemitism in weaponizing white power extremism in America-and why democracy requires us to set aside political partisanship to combat it
Economic Security and the Separation of Powers
Full text linkThe U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, but today the exercise of the foreign commerce power resides primarily with the executive branch. That transfer of control is partly the result of significant delegations of responsibility for managing foreign commerce from Congress to the executive. It is also, however, the result of the securitization of foreign commerce. The executive branch asserts that foreign commerce issues fall under its constitutional powers over foreign affairs, and, thus, that it enjoys authority over foreign commerce that exceeds the scope of congressional delegations.
This Article makes three contributions. First, we analyze the development of a trade administrative state charged with managing two sets of broad delegations: to liberalize trade, on the one hand, and to restrict it in the name of economic security when the executive deems necessary. Second, we document the way in which the executive branch in recent presidential administrations of both parties has defended those administrations\u27 trade policies in court by arguing that the president\u27s independent constitutional powers over (noncommercial) foreign affairs give him license to exercise power over commerce beyond that delegated by Congress, or that congressional delegations should be construed in his favor. The courts, for their part, have often accepted these claims either directly or indirectly.
Third, we propose three statutory reforms that Congress could pass to restore balance to the branches\u27 regulation of foreign commerce: (1) Congress should sunset the president\u27s imposition of tariffs or other trade restrictions pursuant to economic security statutes after 90 or 18o days without the possibility of renewal unless Congress acts; (2) Congress should prohibit the executive branch from relying on any international agreement as the legal basis under which any good or service is imported into the United States, exported from the United States, or regulated while in the United States, unless Congress has either explicitly authorized the agreement in advance or approved it after its conclusion; and (3) Congress should eliminate the Federal Circuit\u27s exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in most trade cases
Embracing the Heat: “Hot Labor Summer” Rekindles NLRB Authority, and the Need for Strategic Enforcement
Full text linkThe National Labor Relations Board is solely responsible for enforcing federal labor union law, but it lacks the power to effectively remedy and deter unlawful acts. This situation allows employers to violate labor law with near impunity, denying their employees’ rights guaranteed under federal law. In Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, the NLRB overturned decades-old precedent and adopted a more effective standard for determining whether to issue an order for an employer to bargain in good faith with a union. The new rule disincentivizes unfair labor practices, which promotes employees’ freedom to designate representatives for collective bargaining, but alone, it is not enough to fix labor relations in the United States.
The Board’s new standard, while an improvement, will not be effective in preventing determined employers from avoiding their bargaining obligations through delay. Time is one of the most important determinants of the effectiveness of bargaining orders, and under Cemex, an employer can still delay meeting at the bargaining table until a final order is enforced by a court. This delay weakens union support and decreases the likelihood of a union reaching a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. This Note argues that the Board should increase the use of interim injunctive bargaining orders from federal district courts to maintain the union’s majority status and prevent employers from benefitting from their unlawful acts. Although the NLRB declined to reinstate the good-faith doubt test, the General Counsel should adopt its factors for determining the subjective intent of employers to identify those who intentionally violate the law to avoid unionization. Strategically seeking injunctive relief in these situations will more effectively deter unfair labor practices from bad-faith actors and will fully effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act within the remedial authority of the Board