Search

The article presents a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling stating that the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) limiting education-related compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In the case NCAA v. Alston, the NCAA's restrictions on compensation unrelated to education. Also cited is the ruling in the case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.

The article discusses the issue of rights in U.S. Supreme Court cases during its 2017 term, including in the U.S. Supreme Court case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." The impact that constitutional law has on the Supreme Court's framework in determining case judgments is discussed.

What is a musical work? Philosophers debate it, but for judges the answer has long been simple: music means melody. Though few recognize it today, that answer goes all the way back to the birth of music copyright litigation in the nineteenth century. Courts adopted the era's dominant aesthetic view identifying melody as the site of originality and, consequently, the litmus test for similarity. Surprisingly, music's single-element test has persisted as an anomaly within the modern copyright system, where multiple features of eligible subject matter typically are eligible for protection. Yet things are now changing. Recent judicial decisions are beginning to break down the old definitional wall around melody, looking elsewhere within the work to find protected expression. Many have called this increasing scope problematic. This Article agrees - but not for the reason that most people think. The problem is not, as is commonly alleged, that these decisions are unfaithful to bedrock copyright doctrine. A closer inspection reveals that, if anything, they are in fact more faithful than their predecessors. The problem is instead that the bedrock doctrine itself is flawed. Copyright law, unlike patent law, has never shown any interest in trying to increase the predictability of its infringement test, leaving second comers to speculate as to what might or might not be allowed. But the history of music copyright offers a valuable look at a path not taken, an accidental experiment where predictability was unwittingly achieved by consistently emphasizing a single element out of a multi-element work. As a factual matter, the notion that melody is the primary locus of music's value is a fiction. As a policy matter, however, that fiction has turned out to be useful. While its original, culturally myopic rationale should be discarded, music's unidimensional test still offers underappreciated advantages over the "everything counts" analysis that the rest of the copyright system long ago chose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges to democratic integrity arising from U.S. Supreme Court judgments on voting rights and campaign financing. It mentions government actions to interfere in these actions, the lack of protection of political participation in constitutional law, and suggests possible approaches for achieving more consistent decisions.

The article discusses the virtues of heterogeneity in relation to the U.S. Constitution and various judgments by America's Supreme Court (Court), and it mentions how the Court has explained the purposes behind race-conscious integration in lower- and higher-education litigation matters. A racial diversity rationale is examined, along with the U.S. Constitution's First and Sixth Amendments. School desegregation lawsuits such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2017 case Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami which deals with America's Fair Housing Act (FHA), legal standing to file a lawsuit, and a proximate cause legal doctrine. According to the article, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that cities can be aggrieved persons under the FHA. Foreclosures in Miami, Florida are examined, along with an unjust enrichment claim and minority neighborhoods in Florida.

The article discusses the views of various legal scholars regarding a rise in purposivism in legal interpretations in America in relation to a shift away from judicial deference to the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the administrative law case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. The textualism form of legal interpretation is examined, along with statutory interpretation by the USSC under Chief Justice John Roberts. Several USSC judgments are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the 2016 case United States v. Fokker Services B.V. which deals with American criminal law, the nation's separation of powers doctrine, and the determination that courts may not reject deferred prosecution agreements based on the inadequacy of charging decisions or agreement conditions. The collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction are examined, along with U.S. judicial review.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1985 commercial speech case Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and it mentions the evolution of America's commercial speech doctrine, litigation involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the efforts to minimize confusion regarding American courts' analyses of compelled commercial disclosures. Solitude for commercial speakers and the rights of U.S. consumers are assessed

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's ruling in the 2016 case Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran which deals with American foreign relations law and the court's determination that the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FISA) does not provide a freestanding basis for litigants to satisfy their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism. The legal rights of U.S. victims of terrorism are examined, along with exceptions and asset seizure law.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the 2014 case American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which deals with America's commercial speech laws, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the court's test for compelled disclosures. Efforts to prevent consumer deception are mentioned in relation to misleading advertisements and graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Meat labeling laws are examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case American Broadcasting Companies Inc. (ABC Inc.) v. Aereo Inc. which deals with the nation's Copyright Act of 1976, the U.S. Congress' enactment of a copyright law Transmit Clause, and the legal aspects of transmitted broadcast television to users via the Internet. Several other U.S. copyright law-related legal cases are examined, along with community antenna television and a copyright holders' exclusive rights.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc. which deals with a legal standing doctrine in America and the nation's civil procedure rules. According to the article, constitutional standing requirements in America derive from a limitation of the judicial power to resolve cases and controversies under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A "legal interest" standing test is also examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Daimler AG v. Bauman which deals with the differences between the laws of personal jurisdiction (PJ) and general jurisdiction (GJ) in America. USSC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision in the 2011 GJ-related case Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown is examined. California contracts, motions to dismiss, and various other USSC cases are also mentioned.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn which deals with a prohibition against the assessment of a fair-share fee against in-home caregivers under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. American freedom of speech rights and the legal aspects of compelled subsidization are mentioned. The 1977 USSC case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which deals with public-sector union dues and collective bargaining units, is also examined.