Date of Publication:
Jaclyn Lopez, The New Normal: Climate Change Victims in Post-Kiobel United States Federal Courts, 8 Charleston L. Rev. 113 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Peter Lake, What the New Campus Safety Center Can Accomplish, Chronicle of Higher Education (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ann Piccard, Death by Boarding School: “The Last Acceptable Racism” and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans, 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 137 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, International Environmental Law, 47 American Bar Association Section of International Law Year in Review 435 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Berenguer, In Defense of Scholarship, 27 Second Draft 4 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Taking Opt-In Rights Seriously: What Knox v. SEIU Could Mean for Post-Citizens United Shareholder Rights, 74 Mont. L. Rev. 101 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article will explore the implications of the Supreme Court’s disparate treatment of similarly-situated, politically active corporations and unions. Two paths lead to more equitable treatment of these two groups: either (1) corporate political speech should be regulated more or (2) union political speech should be regulated less. This piece argues in favor of the former. In particular, corporate political spending lacks the transparency and consent mechanisms present in union political spending. Policymakers should address both of these failings in the corporate context.
The Roberts Supreme Court’s asymmetrical treatment of corporations and unions was on full display in the 2011–2012 term. American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock coupled with Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 demonstrates that a double standard persists between corporations, who are now privileged speakers in the Court’s eyes, and unions, who are currently disfavored speakers. The Supreme Court imposes different degrees of consent from corporations’ and unions’ constituent parts before they electioneer. Under U.S. law, corporations are not required to get consent from their shareholders before the corporate entity speaks politically using corporate funds. By contrast, public-sector unions must receive nonmembers’ consent before political spending in certain circumstances.
With the Supreme Court unlikely to change legal positions on this issue until the Court’s composition itself changes, the responsibility to foster more equitable regulations for corporations is left to the American electorate, Congress, the States, and executive agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which must work within the boundaries of current precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Knox requiring opt-ins for union political expenditures provides an additional basis for arguing that publicly traded American corporations should likewise marshal shareholder consent before corporate political expenditures are made.
Date of Publication:
Peter Lake, The College ‘Court’ Phenomenon, NASPA's Leadership Exchange (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste and , Signs and Portents in Cyberspace The Rise of Jus Internet as a New Order in International Law, 23 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 1311 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Today, having sufficient access to the Internet's information has arguably become a prerequisite for the enjoyment of human life. The Internet has become a center for human literacy and has the potential to offer numerous kinds of instruction at lower costs and with higher quality than previous media could offer. This Article will argue that the concept of a "cybered Westphalian age," as a cure to all threats in the Internet, has the potential to do more harm than good. The international community is now faced with a possible policy shift from the current state of the Internet, which is one of shared knowledge, toward the active practice of censorship and filtered content, which will have devastating consequences.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor and Bruce Green, Unregulated Internal Investigations Achieving Fairness for Corporate Constituents, 54 B.C. L. Rev. 73 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article focuses on the relationship between corporations and their employee constituents in the context of corporate internal investigations, an unregulated multi-million dollar business. The classic approach provided in the 1981 Supreme Court opinion, Upjohn v. United States, is contrasted with the reality of modern-day internal investigations that may exploit individuals to achieve a corporate benefit with the government. Attorney-client privilege becomes an issue as corporate constituents perceive that corporate counsel is representing their interests, when in fact these internal investigators are obtaining information for the corporation to barter with the government. Legal precedent and ethics rules provide little relief to these corporate employees. This Article suggests that courts need to move beyond the Upjohn decision and recognize this new landscape. It advocates for corporate fair dealing and provides a multi-faceted approach to achieve this aim. Ultimately this Article considers how best to level the playing field between corporations and their employees in matters related to the corporate internal investigation.
Date of Publication:
Mark D. Bauer, Peter Pan as Public Policy: Should 55-Plus Age Restricted Communities Continue to be Exempt from Civil Rights Laws and Substantive Federal Regulation?, 21 University of Illinois Elder L.J. 33 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Although millions of Americans live in 55-plus age-restricted housing, little research has been done to determine whether these communities benefit their residents, or the nation as a whole. This is particularly ironic because these communities exist in contravention to anti-discrimination laws by virtue of a specific exemption granted to real estate developers by an Act of Congress. Ordinarily age discrimination is prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Successful lobbying by special interest groups carved out an exemption for 55-plus housing.
The original exemption required developers to offer elders special services and facilities in these communities in return for the exemption. Over time, those requirements were eliminated and now the only requirement is that these communities exclude families and children. While lifestyles focused on golf and tennis may be attractive to younger retirees, older Americans often find themselves in communities bereft of the services and facilities they need for basic life activities and safety. The very nature of these communities result in elders left with depreciating homes, and many are without the financial means to retrofit their 55-plus home or to move into a community better adapted for their needs. This Article explores a popular form of “senior housing” that is unsuitable for most older Americans.