Search

The article focuses on legality of metadata collection in the U.S. under the U.S PATRIOT Act. Topics include the legal justification for the investigation of Americans' private telephone records, the data collection program implemented by the U.S. National Security Administration under U.S. President Barack Obama, and if such practices are a violation of privacy.

Provides information on the U.S. court case Mid-West Paper Products Co. versus Continental Group Inc. which deals with the challenge posed by the standing of purchasers from non-conspirators on price-fixing conspiracy. Allegations against Mid-West Paper; Argument raised by the plaintiffs against the defendant's conspiracy; Conclusion that the court reached for the case.

Trademark scholars widely agree that our current system for evaluating what rights a trademark owner should have over others’ uses of their (or similar) marks is broken. Courts too readily find too many acts to be infringing even when they’re harmless or actually useful to consumers. Trademark practitioners, meanwhile, while often quite approving of broad interpretations of trademark law, widely recognize that our trademark registration system has significant practical problems. What we haven’t done is try to unite concerns over the expansion of trademark rights with concerns over the registration system and explain their relationship to each other. Registration offers some of the most challenging puzzles in trademark law. Consider: If the mark REDSKINS for a football team is disparaging and its trademark registration therefore invalid, can trademark law nonetheless protect the team against unauthorized uses of the term? This question became more than theoretical when a district court recently upheld the invalidation of the REDSKINS registrations, a ruling now on appeal and likely headed to the Supreme Court. Or suppose the PTO determines that, in the abstract, an applied-for trademark is likely to cause confusion with another previously registered mark. I f the applicant decides to use the mark anyway, without a registration, should the PTO’s determination bind a federal court asked to determine whether the new mark, as actually used, causes confusion with that previously registered mark? The Supreme Court just decided this issue in a way that generated large-scale uncertainty about the new relationship between registration and infringement liability. These questions, and a number of others, highlight the need for renewed attention to trademark registration as such. Registration provides opportunities to limit trademark’s current structurelessness. Specifically, registration works best in a system that doesn’t aim to search out and extirpate every possible instance of confusion, instead recognizing multiple reasons that we might avoid fact-intensive confusion inquiries and either ban or allow certain market behaviors. Moreover, maintaining the registration system requires the investment of substantial government and private resources, which is currently almost irrelevant at the enforcement stage. Applicants and the PTO spend much time and effort crafting the equivalent of an exquisitely detailed origami crane; rather than considering the details, courts then ask the equivalent of “is this paper folded? and move on. Not only is this a waste of resources, but it also leads courts to misunderstand the proper scope of a registration. There are a number of changes, ranging from small tweaks to sweeping statutory reforms and the rejection of the Supreme Court’s ahistorical conclusion that registration is a matter of factual accident rather than an important distinction between types of marks, that could improve the law to the benefit of trademark owners and nonowners alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on reassessing the U.S. policies to secure nuclear arsenals worldwide. Accordingly, the paper considers the questions facing policymakers charged with designing a strategy to secure nuclear weapons and material worldwide from theft and use by terrorists. In tackling these questions, the paper proceeds in five parts such as the outlining of U.S. policy for preventing state behaviors that could facilitate nuclear terrorism, assessing the results of this policy, concluding that it has failed to produce adequate levels of fissile material security, exploring the reasons for this lack of progress, and the consideration of a range of potential options for creating stronger incentives for states to secure their nuclear stockpiles.

The article focuses on the federal administrative approach to redistricting reform in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper advocates the adoption of limited, selective federal oversight of congressional redistricting plans created by partisan legislatures, with an eye toward encouraging the use of independent redistricting commissions. Moreover, the paper also suggests the creation of a federal agency authorized to review partisan redistricting at the request of a substantial minority of a state's legislature, while providing a safe harbor for states that use independent agencies to redraw district lines.

The article discusses various freedom of speech regulations in America as of June 2014, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the legal cases New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and New York Times Co. v. United States (Pentagon Papers) which deal with the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution and civil damages for alleged defamation. Prior restraints, democratic legitimacy, and freedom of expression rights in America are mentioned. U.S. government practices are also examined.

The article discusses state executive offices and appointments for state attorneys general in the U.S. as of January 2014, focusing on a push for the establishment of additional state unitary executive systems in which a single official presides over the entire executive branch. Executive nominations, legislative confirmations, and executive removal power are mentioned, along with the U.S. Constitution's Vesting Clause and the arguments set forth in the "Federalist Papers."

This Essay analyzes an essay by H. L. A. Hart about discretion that has never before been published, and has often been considered lost. Hart, one of the most significant legal philosophers of the twentieth century, wrote the essay at Harvard Law School in November 1956, shortly after he arrived as a visiting professor. In the essay, Hart argued that discretion is a special mode of reasoned, constrained decisionmaking that occupies a middle ground between arbitrary choice and determinate rule application. Hart believed that discretion, soundly exercised, provides a principled way of coping with legal indeterminacy that is fully consistent with the rule of law. This Essay situates Hart's paper -- Discretion -- in historical and intellectual context, interprets its main arguments, and assesses its significance in jurisprudential history. In the context of Hart's work, Discretion is notable because it sketches a theory of legal reasoning in depth, with vivid examples. In the context of jurisprudential history, Discretion is significant because it sheds new light on long-overlooked historical and theoretical connections between Hart's work and the Legal Process School, the American jurisprudential movement dominant at Harvard during Hart's year as a visiting professor. Hart's Discretion is part of our jurisprudential heritage, advancing our understanding of legal philosophy and its history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2013 case Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) which deals with the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) and judicial deference for an American government agency's interpretation of its own regulations in the aftermath of the USSC's judgment in the case Auer v. Robbins. According to the article, the NEDC filed a lawsuit under the CWA's citizen-suit provision against various logging and paper-product companies.

The article discusses the court case, Ibrahim Ali versus Michael B. Mukasey, in which the Seventh Circuit gave in to a statutory interpretation put forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the U.S. The court held that an immigration court could consider additional evidence beyond the charging papers and judgment of conviction. This decision countermanded conflicting Seventh Circuit precedents, elucidating that administrative discretion belongs to the agency rather than to the court.

The article focuses on the vision of Publius, a collective pseudonym for the authors of the publication "Federalist Papers" namely Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It discusses the way Publius defends a Constitution that focuses on the creation of power that the U.S. government lacked during the Articles of Confederation period, but taking into considerations the tyranny that it may bring. It is noted that a system containing "auxiliary precautions" against tyrannical usurpations is created. The vertical competition model and the guard dog model proposed by Publius are presented, as well as the features and implications of such models.

The article explores the two important concepts such as morality and justice inspired by the statue in Cambridge Common in the U.S. In its vivid depiction of a wealthy individual who finds himself in a position to help a poor individual, the statue raises fundamental questions of morality and obligation toward others. In its reminder of the impoverishment of some groups relative to other groups in society, the statue also draws on deep conceptions of justice and inequality between classes. Moreover, the paper investigates how morality and justice affect the choice of legal professions, arguing that legal career choices should involve good faith efforts to serve both of these noble goals.

The article discusses the extraterritorial constitution and the interpretive relevance of international law in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. The first part discusses the state of the law following United States versus Verdugo-Urquidez and the contemporary significance of the question of extraterritorial application of the Constitution. The second part situates the impracticable and anomalous standard in historical context, drawing on the nineteenth-century use of international law to identify powers inherent in sovereignty. The third part argues that in the context of the war on terrorism, it is sensible to look to international humanitarian law to guide the inquiry into when certain rights apply extraterritorially.

The article focuses on the issues of vaccine law in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper suggests that vaccine law should be distinguished between two kinds of necessity such as the medical necessity and practical necessity. Those vaccines classified as medically necessary would be those that are the only known viable defenses against diseases taking hold in a community. However, practically necessary vaccines are those to which there are alternatives, but which alternatives are, in practice, not used by a significant number of people.

The article discusses the internationalization of copyright in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in three parts. The first part is the discussion of the details of the internationalization of copyright which provides examples of domestic legislation passed in response to international obligations and standards, and canvasses cases that have taken stock of this new globalized copyright. The second part turns to the handful of scholars who have responded to the new international side of copyright. The third part introduces a new method of judicial review that seeks to bridge the gaps and to respond to what may be the greatest danger of not substantively reviewing domestic law purporting to comply with international obligations.

The article discusses the ministerial exemption for religious employers in the U.S. Accordingly, the paper proceeds in five parts. The first part describes the history of the ministerial exception. The second part provides details of the constitutional bases for the exception under both Religion Clauses, and argues that the expressive association right further justifies the ministerial exception even though the case law has not yet recognized this rationale. The third part evaluates the primary duties test used to trigger the ministerial exception. The fourth part encourages adoption of a deferential primary duties test to cure these constitutional defects. The last part responds to potential criticisms of a deferential primary duties test.

Analyzes the application of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the case Fisher v. United States for cases concerning the use of subpoena duces tecum and the rights of criminal defendants in the U.S. Background on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court; Discussion on the concept of implicit authentication; Examination of the first amendment protection for personal paper.

Focuses on the Constitutional Law in the United States. State Subsidies Favoring Local Business; Term of the U.S. Supreme Court on Death Penalty; Fifth Amendment Protection of Private Papers.