Search

The article analyzes how labor courts handle legal issues concerning subcontracting and plant removal in the U.S. It traces the judicial processes of various labor court cases, from the court trials to establishing judgments. The concept of subcontracting and plant removal depict the desire of the labor market to ensure job security or balance property rights with job rights. In analyzing the role of courts in the contractual area, the issues of arbitration and merits of law declared by them must be taken into consideration. From analyzing labor court cases, it can be concluded that court have done a great job when it comes to arbitration process.

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, particularly those sections which amended the Taft-Hartley Act's provisions on secondary boycotts and organizational picketing, is probably not the terminal phase of postwar governmental regulation and control of labor organizations. A substantial body of opinion argues for even stricter control and advocates removing unions from their exempt status under the antitrust laws. In effect, as the author of this discussion suggests, the antitrust approach would return the making of public policy in the labor field to the courts and limit, for a time at least, further congressional action. In this discussion, the author reviews the present status of unions under the antitrust laws and appraises some of the proposals for amending those laws to curb union practices that are alleged to be in conflict with the public welfare, In general, he believes that the assumptions underlying the antitrust approach require more critical appraisal than they have thus far received. His discussion points up some of the difficulties that may result if the proposals become law, assuming that encouragement of collective bargaining is to remain as a valid public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court in the Inland Steel Company case was the final step in litigation which established pension and welfare plans as a bargainable issue under the National Labor Relations Act. The decision, however, has not eliminated from the minds of many persons the question of the character of these plans as gratuities or compensation to the employees. This article traces the views concerning the character of such plans, particularly of the courts and administrative agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the identity of a majority opinion writer affect the level of agreement a Supreme Court decision receives from the public? Using a survey experiment, we manipulate majority opinion authors to investigate whether individuals are willing to agree with Supreme Court opinions authored by ideologically similar justices even though the decisions cut against their self-identified ideological policy preferences. Our study provides insight into the extent to which policy cues—represented by a political institution’s policy messenger—affect agreement with a given policy. We find that a messenger effect indeed augments the level of agreement a given Supreme Court case receives. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The eminent scholar John Rohr in one of his many treatises argued that as we progress through time, the U.S. Supreme Court becomes more socially adaptable in terms of its interpretation of race issues under the U.S. Constitution. He also pointed out that the courts should be working with policy makers responding to the demands of the day, to promote vital goals such as diversity in higher education. This article illustrates the evolution of affirmative action qua diversity over time, and shows that through the progression of time, the High Court’s decisions on diversity or affirmative action programs have become more enlightened, certainly reflecting the values of policy makers as well as societal norms. In 2013, the Court agreed to hear an appeal to Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which upheld the use of affirmative action in accordance with Grutter as well as Bakke. If the Court had overturned these decisions, it would have single-handedly destroyed decades of progress made around diversity in university settings, and concomitantly disdainfully rejected the values of the American people. Instead, the Court sent Fisher back to the lower court, instructing it to apply strict scrutiny to the University of Texas’ claim that its program was narrowly tailored, thereby leaving open the possibility that affirmative action, as framed by Grutter and Bakke, will not survive. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Is Supreme Court legitimacy affected by the way justices explain their decisions to the public? Existing work shows a link between legitimacy and case outcomes but often overlooks the impact of opinion content. Using a novel experimental design, the author measures the effect of three different types of judicial arguments on public support for the Court. The results suggest that the rationales used by justices in their opinions can affect institutional legitimacy, but to a lesser degree than conventional wisdom suggests. Taken together with other recent legitimacy research, these findings have important implications and set the stage for follow-up research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Courts, students are told, will protect minorities’ legal rights against popular sentiment and political pressure. But courts can be expected to protect rights only within boundaries shaped in part by popular and political opinion. This suggests that litigation outcomes regarding education rights issues will depend on shifting the policymaking context through broad societal changes in perspective about the importance of equitable schooling. This dynamic of courts carrying out their limited countermajoritarian role within contextual constraints has substantial implications concerning the largely unrealized capacity of social science to affect judicial decision making. Accordingly, this article explores that dynamic and those implications, building on existing concepts from political science scholarship and introducing the concept of a zone of judicial constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Recent research suggests that the use of monetary sanctions as a supplementary penalty in state and federal criminal courts is expanding, and that their imposition creates substantial and deleterious legal debt. Little is known, however, about the factors that influence the discretionary imposition of these penalties. This study offers a comprehensive account of the role socio-cultural factors, especially race and ethnicity, have in this institutional sanctioning process. We rely on multilevel statistical analysis of the imposition of monetary sanctions in Washington State courts to test our theory. The theoretical framework emphasizes the need to treat race and ethnicity as complex cultural categories, the meaning and institutional effects of which may vary across time and space. Findings indicate that racialized crime scripts, such as the association of Latinos with drugs, affect defendants whose wrong-doing is stereotype congruent. Moreover, all individuals accused of committing racially and ethnically stigmatized offenses in racialized contexts may experience the courtesy stigma that flows from racialization. We find that race and ethnicity are not just individual attributes but cultural categories that shape the distribution of stigma and the institutional consequences that flow from it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Social scientists collect vital information that bears on issues of education policy. When the courts are faced with an opportunity to make a decision that shapes education, judges need access to high-quality research, but they must also be convinced that it can be useful in their decision making. This article approaches the question of how social science can be made more effective in judicial decision making. The authors examine the use of social science evidence by the courts and the theories of jurisprudence that bear on its effectiveness. As an example of the difficulty of influencing the outcome of a case, they review the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision involving the use of race in school assignments in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Do parties' briefs influence the content of Supreme Court opinions? The author contends that the parties, through the briefs submitted on the merits, have the ability to influence the content of opinions and, consequently, have the ability to influence the law. Utilizing plagiarism software, the author compares the parties' briefs with the majority opinion of the Court. The results indicate that there is a connection between the language of the parties' briefs and the language of the opinions, which means that parties have the potential to influence the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks two questions stemming from a conflict in the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court's attention to issues: (1) Are levels of legal mobilization explained by salient Court decisions? (2)Is the Court's level of attention explained by levels of legal mobilization? To answer them, the author tests hypotheses from the public policy and public law literature on data from seven specific issue areas. The author finds that levels of legal mobilization cannot be explained by past salient decisions of the Court but finds some evidence that changes in the Court's levels of attention are explained by levels of mobilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit decision on the Garcetti versus Ceballos case on whistleblower protection and its implications for public educators. The appeals court sided with assistant district attorney Richard Ceballos who was retaliated by his superiors after he challenged a search warrant. The Supreme Court argues that Ceballos' act is part of his job and not for public concern. Whistleblowing related to job responsibilities are not protected.

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Brown verses Board of Education lawsuit in 1954, which concerns school desegregation. Implications of the decision for the education system; Issue of racism in education; Overview of the case; Legal and societal significance of the case.

Questions the common view that John Marshall, United States chief justice, during his first years on the federal bench `firmly established the Court's authority to review and strike down government actions that were incompatible with the constitution, by examining the case of the United States versus Schooner Peggy. Circumstances surrounding the case; Decision in the case; Reference made to some chief justices of the American courts.

Focuses on U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the vulnerability of public officials and governmental units to liability suits. History of liability decisions involving units of government and public officials; How contemporary debate co-opts historical immunity doctrines; Discussion of the future of immunity and sovereignty and balancing the needs of society relative to the problems of the administrator; Suggestion regarding the analysis of previous liability suits and the relationship between sovereign and official immunities.

Lawsuits in nearly three dozen states have challenged the constitutionality of state school finance provisions on equal protection or educational adequacy grounds. Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appellate court, and 10 state supreme courts have upheld state provisions, and 7 state supreme courts have held school financing provisions unconstitutional Although wealth-related school finance litigation began in 1968 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 1973, the judicial caldron continues to boil. Protracted rounds of litigation over the years in several states and a rash of recent suits reveal this issue to remain lively and content bus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the school finance policy in the U.S. during the years 1955 to 1980. School districts have lived with taxing limitations for more than a century. Conventional school finance plans permitted local school boards to maintain taxing discretion only within a ceiling which provided that if the tax rate were to be higher, it necessitated voter approval. Beginning in the 1970s, however, a new strategy began appearing with increasing frequency in the form of limitations on spending. In 1972, in an effort to avoid a court ruling in the case, Serrano vs. Priest, the California legislature enacted Senate Bill 90, which imposed a spending ceiling on school districts. The bill's complicated formula resulted in a different ceiling for each district. Efficiency proponents contended that if schools could not be made more productive, then at least it would be possible to limit the amount of public money wasted. The spending limit idea began to build momentum and spilled over beyond the boundaries of public schooling.

The article reports that on February 25, 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Court in ruling that the California Labor Code prohibiting an employer from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the U.S. is not inherently unconstitutional. The California Labor Code, Section 2805(a) provides that no employer shall knowingly employ an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the U.S. if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The California Court of Appeals held that Section 2805(a) is an attempt to regulate the conditions for admission of foreign nationals and, therefore, unconstitutional because in the area of immigration and naturalization, Congressional power is exclusive. The Court of Appeals further indicated that state regulatory power over the subject matter of employment of aliens was foreclosed when Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act as a comprehensive scheme governing all aspects of immigration and naturalization, including the employment of aliens and specifically and intentionally declined to add sanctions on employers to its control mechanism. This is the doctrine of preemption, meaning that when the Federal Government has indicated a desire to regulate a particular field of law exclusively states are prohibited from enacting any laws or regulations in that particular area.

This article focuses on the studies on court decisions in reference to the planning and construction of buildings in the U.S. With regards to tort liability and negligence, researchers have analyzed the court decisions and legal theories involved, pointed out the nonliability of school districts generally, excluding New York, California, and Washington. The subjection of the principle of municipal immunity to several legal theories to criticism, the author recommended that: (1) the acceptance by courts of the rule of complete liability of municipalities for tort; and (2) the damages be confined to the monetary damages actually sustained. Furthermore, the courts are divided on the issue on whether public school property may be used for other than school purposes without express statutory permission, and recent decisions indicate the tendency to recognize the schools as centers of community life. Moreover, in cases involving tax exemption, the charter exemption from taxes could be voided by legislation without violating Article X of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, courts have decided that property which contains the specific condition in its title that the property is granted only so long as it shall be used for educational or school purposes.

This article discusses court decisions and legislative provisions governing textbooks and curriculum of schools in the U.S. Subject to constitutional limitations, the power of adoption and control of textbooks is vested solely in the legislature. It may provide for a uniform series of textbooks which must be used, to the exclusion of all others, in all districts of the state except those definitely excepted, and may, without creating a monopoly, grant the exclusive right of furnishing such books to a person, firm, or corporation. The authors suggest that the terms of the statutes must be strictly complied with by adopting authorities and those dealing with school officials must take notice of the authority conferred upon them by law.

The article focuses on the issues concerning the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the District of Columbia (D.C.) v. Dick Anthony Heller case regarding individual's right to bear firearms for private use in 2009. It states that in 2006, six residents including Heller challenged the Firearms Control Regulation Act, which was passed in 1975, as a violation to the Second Amendment. It cites that the appellate court dismissed five of the complainants except for Heller.

The article examines the ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on the case Massachusetts et. al. versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its implications for public health policy and practice. The lawsuit was centered on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1). According to the author, the case proves how the political process can affect the course of public health laws intended to ensure that health policy rests not on the unfounded claims but on scientific inquiry.

The article discusses the implications of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Gonzales versus Oregon for public health policy and practice. The Court rejected efforts by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to preempt state medical practice law permitting physician-assisted suicide. It found that nothing in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) authorized Gonzales to define what constitutes legal medical practice. It concluded that the CSA denied Gonzales the authority he claimed.

Examines the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case of Lawrence versus Texas, which struck down the anti-sodomy statutes of Texas as in violation of the Constitutional right to individual liberty. Facts being disputed in the case; Implications of the case for public health policy and practice; Arguments taken by both parties.

The work of the 1956-57 Committee on Relations with Sociologists in Other Countries was concerned with exploratory efforts to conceive ways through which the Society might promote better relations with foreign sociologists. On the basis of suggestions submitted by various Committee members a set of eight proposals were circulated among the 14 members of the Committee. Judgments were secured from 11 of the members. It is clear that further study of the proposals is required before definitive recommendations would be in order. Hence, the Committee has only a single recommendation that the present report be transmitted to the 1957-58 Committee for further inquiry and action. All of the 11 responding members agreed that such a roster would be of value. Its uses might be many. It would convey a picture of the extent of sociological interest abroad that few members of the Society possess. It could be helpful to American sociologists planning visits abroad. It could be of aid to American sociologists seeking information through correspondence. It might have subsidiary value to members of our Society interested in possible exchange relations.

The article presents several studies being done on labor law across the U.S. as of October 1983. The impact of court decisions on the ability of unions to process grievances over the use of tests in promotional decisions are being examined by Dan Gallagher and Katie Wolfe in Iowa. State and federal privacy-protection legislation for private sector employees are being analyzed by John Blackburn and Elliot Klayman in Ohio. The sex-based actuarial tables for pension benefits is being evaluated by Patrick J. Cihon.

The article presents an update on research efforts about labor law in the U.S. as of October 1982. At Cornell University, a research on recent developments in the legal status of the duty of fair representation is being conducted by Jean T. McKelvey. At the University of Kentucky, annotated case reports of recent state court decisions for a volume of "International Labour Law Reports" is being prepared by Alvin Goldman. At Ohio State University, the legal remedies available to individual employees are being examined by John Blackburn.

The article reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on non-citizenship in relation to one of the court cases. On November 19, 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a rejection of an application for employment by a private employer because the applicant is an alien is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is interesting to note that in interpreting the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has traditionally held, and set forth by regulation, that discrimination on the basis of citizenship has the effect of discrimination on the basis of national origin and, therefore, a lawfully immigrated alien who is domiciled and residing in the United States may not be discriminated against on the basis of citizenship. At this time, the potential danger resulting from the decision of the Court can only be averted through an amendment to the Civil Rights Act which would add "alienage" as a prohibited form of discrimination.