In jurisdictions around the world, constitutions are held up as venerable national texts available to strike down legislation and government action offending basic societal commitments. Constitutions are seen as forces of good and not just due to their explicit rights-granting
In Marisol Orihuela’s The Lawyer’s Quandary: Client-Center Lawyering in the Treatment Paradigm, we get an in-depth discussion about the dilemma criminal defense lawyers face when they are counseling individuals with atypical decision-making capacity. Specifically, Orihuela focuses on individuals with personality
Any serious study of civil procedure in the United States should learn
Arbitration in Name Only seeks to resolve the many issues generated by current-day arbitration agreements between a business drafter and consumers or employees. The
The Supreme Court makes law. This shouldn’t be controversial. Like the rest of the judiciary, the Supreme Court lacks sword or purse. But those who fail to adhere to its legal reasoning or obey its judgments are generally met
Jotwell is taking a short summer break. We’ll be back on Monday, August 31. However, even while we’re on break, we’ll be accepting submissions, editing them, and updating various technical parts of the site.Meanwhile, this is
Michael Schler thinks the prognosis for the federal income tax, at least as it is currently administered, is not good. In The State of the Federal Income Tax System: Poor, he outlines many of the problems federal tax administration currently
In Gundy, Justice Gorsuch reminds us that one of the traditional roles of the agency is “filling up details and finding facts.” (Dissent, P. 33.) Indeed, “fact-finding” appears in the title of at least eighty law review articles on
Most legal responses to generative artificial intelligence ask familiar questions. Who may copy? Who may sue? Who should regulate? Who should pay? Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz ask a more basic, and more corporate, question: who should own AI? Their
In Work Law’s Domain, Professor Ryan Nelson reveals our general “blindness” about who and how many people are really covered by work law generally and employment discrimination law in particular. (P. 60.) As Professor Nelson notes early in the piece,
