Search

ARTICLE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2616 I. SITUATING INTERLOCAL 2625 AGREEMENTS A. ILAs in 2627 Local-Government Practice B. ILAs in 2631 Local-Government Scholarship II. THE FORMIDABLE 2635 REACH OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS A. [...], Local governments contract with each other for a wide variety of purposes: to deliver services, administer grant money, coordinate emergency responses, and manage infrastructure projects. These interlocal agreements (ILAs) have been embraced by local officials keen to forge administrative efficiencies in an environment of limited resources. By contracting with neighboring and overlapping governments, a local entity can draw upon funding and technical skills that it does not otherwise possess alone, operating in theory to the ultimate benefit of residents across its region. Yet, the growing prevalence of ILAs belies two underappreciated features of their use. First, when governments enter into ILAs, they do not only exchange basic services and pursue technocratic efficiencies; they also create new policies, announce substantive priorities, and establish new governance frameworks. ILAs are especially prominent in collaborative policing regimes. Acting through an ILA, local governments can expand and dissolve policing jurisdictions, create new cross-jurisdictional policing programs, increase and consolidate jail facilities, and provide rights to certain inmates while declining to extend those same rights to others. ILAs thus function as consequential lawmaking documents--even as they also operate outside the ordinary legislative channels that constrict formal exercises of local power. Second, ILAs fundamentally suffer from a deficit of democratic accountability. Local legislatures are remarkably removed from the negotiations by which ILAs are executed, implemented, monitored, and modified. The very factors that make ILAs potent--vague and confidential terms, malleable ratification procedures, ironclad contract law fortifications--render them difficult for members of the public to scrutinize, let alone, at times, even access. And ILAs regularly give birth to brand-new local government entities, which then breed with each other, using subsequent ILAs to create subsequent local entities, a domino effect of local power and attenuated local accountability. The promise of ILAs as organs of regional lawmaking comes at the peril of public transparency. This mismatch--between expansive power and limited transparency--is no legal accident, but rather can be traced directly to state statutory schemes. Nearly all states have adopted interlocal cooperation acts that broadly empower ILAs and often contain filing requirements to ensure their transparency. Yet public stakeholders systematically fail to take these requirements seriously. Local governments do not consistently follow them, state agencies do not consistently monitor them, and courts do not consistently enforce them. Their collective inactions enable a transparency void. As this Article explains, ILAs must--and can--be brought more firmly into the local governance spotlight without sacrificing their increasingly integral role in the legislative toolkit. In the process, the Article also paints a different picture of local institutions under a federal system: one where local actors navigate state oversight as it is expressed through administrative silence, separate and distinct from manifestations of oversight expressed through political voice.

Previously in Regulation, I wrote about government intervention in the television programming (i.e., channels and networks) and distribution (e.g., cable and satellite service providers) market. (See "The Innovation Won't Be [...]

ESSAY CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2259 I. JOB SECURITY AS PROPERTY-THE STATE OF THE DOCTRINE 2268 II. EXPANDING PROPERTY RIGHTS 2276 A. Justifications for Tying Job Security to 2276 Constitutional Property B. [...], Employment at will is legally and politically entrenched. It is the default termination law in forty-nine states and controls the working lives of most U.S. workers, creating a political economy of precarity and exploitation. In light of these challenges, this Essay offers a novel framework for a constitutional challenge to the at-will termination regime under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The argument advanced in this Essay is that at-will rules strip workers' job security and are, thus, unconstitutional takings of workers' property. Following the Supreme Court's lead, numerous courts equate public-sector workers' job security with property entitlements in their jobs under the Due Process Clause. I offer theories to expand this doctrine from the public sector to the private sector, and from the Due Process Clause to the Takings Clause. As a sword, takings claims can be raised against the prevailing termination regimes in forty-nine states. As a shield, at-will-as-takings claims can protect public-sector workers against increasing precarity in federal, state, and local government work. This Essay makes two additional contributions. First, it rejects the premise underlying contemporary critiques of the Supreme Court's takings doctrine that identify employers as the only property owners on the job. Second, it offers a property-friendly progressive constitutional vision that rejects reliance on the administrative state as the only tool for progressive policy advancements.

NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2103 I. RECONSTRUCTING THE RESTRICTIVE THEORY OF FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 2109 A. The FSIA and the Restrictive 2111 Theory of Foreign Sovereign Immunity B. Reconstructing Justifications for [...], Under current foreign sovereign immunity doctrine, sovereigns are not immune from suit when they engage in "private" acts, such as entering into contracts--in other words, when they act as participants in, rather than regulators of, the market. This Note argues that the distinction between a state's public and private acts is far less stable and clear-cut than it first appears. Many acts in which sovereigns engage are of a mixed nature. Choosing to see an act or transaction as essentially private or public often obscures other features that complicate that characterization. U.S. courts have applied foreign sovereign immunity law in such a way as to selectively recognize the private aspects of such transactions, thereby enabling private actors to bring foreign sovereigns into U.S. courts. This has disproportionately affected Global South nations, where the state is more likely to be involved in the economy and to enter into contracts with private parties to accomplish important sovereign aims. This is a dynamic that I call subordination through private-law adjudication. However, in the longer history of foreign sovereign immunity law, I also argue that simply expanding the category of public law cannot decisively end the subordination of Global South sovereigns in transnational and international law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 567 TABLE OF CONTENTS 569 I. TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN: CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT AND STUDENT-ATHLETE BENEFITS 570 II. ANTICIPATING THE FUTURE: CONSOLIDATING CONTROL AND STUDENT-ATHLETE [...], This paper explores a future in which two "super conferences" dominate college football. Considering the erosion of the PAC 12 Conference and the looming threats to the Atlantic Coast Conference against the skyrocketing media rights revenues of the Big Ten Conference and the Southeastern Conference ("Power Two"), thought leaders across college athletics anticipate that future industry changes will be characterized by a continued consolidation of valuable college football brands into fewer high major conferences than we see today. At the same time, the frequency and public sentiment toward legal attacks on student-athlete compensation restrictions are now such that major college football student-athletes are soon likely to gain access to greater compensation, through employment, collective bargaining, revenue-sharing, or otherwise. As college football becomes captured by the Power Two, there will be a greater incentive for the two rival conferences to work together to maximize the revenues associated with their media rights agreements and minimize the expenses associated with student-athlete compensation. This article argues that antitrust concerns related to media rights agreements are more salient than those related to student-athlete compensation, because courts will be more likely to find that the Power Two controls the relevant product market with respect to high major college football broadcasts than with respect to elite football student-athlete talent. The distinction is grounded in the presence or absence of a reasonable substitute for Power Two products in the context of different consumer groups. Regardless of the legal viability, this article also argues that public perception is such that conferences should avoid using their authority to cap student-athlete benefits. Instead, each institution should decide to compensate its student-athletes at fair, but fiscally responsible, levels that will sustain the college athletics framework.

INTRODUCTION Preemption--when federal law supersedes state law (1)--is a doctrinal thicket. Many of its principles overlap, and the Supreme Court frequently uses multiple forms of preemption analysis when analyzing a [...], In 2019 and 2021, respectively, California and Washington enacted laws banning the operation of private prisons within each state, including those operated by private companies in contracts with the federal government. Nevertheless, the federal government continues to contract with private prisons through Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of non-United States citizens. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom that federal immigration law preempted California's private prison ban. Preemption--when federal law supersedes state law--is a doctrinal thicket. Federal courts analyze preemption issues in multiple different ways in a particular case, often leaving unclear rules as to which mode of analysis is applicable. However, recent United States Supreme Court precedent clarified how lower courts should apply preemption doctrines. This Note asserts that the Ninth Circuit erred in GEO Group v. Newsom. In doing so, it analyzes preemption doctrines, including intergovernmental immunity and an interpretive tool called the "presumption against preemption." It also analyzes GEO Group's impact on Washington's private prison statute and how the dissent's position in GEO Group not only applied the law correctly but resulted in a more manageable allocation of state and federal power. This Note concludes by offering solutions for Washington State to avoid preemption problems in the future.

I. Introduction and a Brief History of Crypto Regulation In May 2022, the total market value of the TerraLuna crypto asset (1) ecosystem fell from an estimated fifty billion dollars [...]

Voluminous information about individuals is being shared every day and everywhere. Streamlining data sharing activities effectively allows public and private entities to use information for policy advancement, knowledge creation and business growth. At the same time, such sharing of personal information also risks harming individuals' privacy and autonomy. How are data sharing activities governed in Australia? What are the main problems with the existing legal framework? This article explores three ways in which the interests of individuals whose data is being shared may be better protected. These are (a) improvements in data privacy and data sharing legislation, (b) adapting private law frameworks to create more protective structures (as in the notion of 'data trusts' and 'information fiduciaries') and (c) enhancing data governance through better contracts, including model data sharing agreement templates. We conclude that while law reform may be desirable, particularly along the lines of the first possibility, organisations that truly 'care about privacy' can act now to improve their data sharing practices through better data sharing agreements and the data culture that they cultivate. The Australian Office of the National Data Commissioner can lead the way with a restructured and reimagined data sharing model agreement., CONTENTS I Introduction 96 II Governing Data Sharing through Regulation 103 A The Australian Legal Approach to Regulating Data Sharing 103 Activities: Streamlining Data Flows 1 Data Sharing Framework 105 [...]

I. INTRODUCTION 345 II. ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE 347 TECHNOLOGIES: A BRIEF OVERVIEW A. PROCEDURES EMPLOYED 347 IN ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES B. POTENTIAL RISKS TO OFFSPRING 348 C. ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A [...]

It is widely held that smart contracts on a blockchain possess several unique properties, including immutability, disintermediation, and enhanced security, that can be advantageous to organizations. In particular, having these properties can enable smart contracts to benefit human resources departments in a number of ways, including applicant verification, tracking employee skills and tasks, and facilitating compensation. However, it is also reported that effectively implementing smart contracts involves a number of challenges to HR managers. To address these challenges, it would be valuable to establish criteria to help HR managers employ smart contracts successfully. The purpose of this paper is to develop a set of such criteria. The paper first provides an overview of the nature of blockchain and smart contracts and then, based on a review of relevant literature, describes how implementation of blockchain-enabled smart contracts in an HR department may benefit an organization by producing transaction cost savings through expediting processes, enhancing security, and reducing intermediaries. The paper then focuses on various challenges that have been identified in the literature to the successful use of smart contracts. These include issues regarding smart contract integrity, immutability, and security, as well as potential problems associated with a variety of legal issues. Synthesizing this information, the paper develops a set of best practice guidelines to help HR managers determine whether and how to employ smart contracts successfully for HR-related processes. The guidelines emphasize the importance of initial understanding and testing of planned smart contracts, protecting security by ensuring that only permissioned people can access smart contract data, and guaranteeing the integrity of smart contracts by paying very close attention to the translation of natural to programming language and establishing robust reviews of programmed contracts. Policy implications of the guidelines include the importance of HR departments ensuring that all employees who are involved in implementing the technology have a good understanding of the nature and capabilities of smart contracts, that robust methods be implemented to guarantee that the contracts are correctly programmed, and that HR managers keep abreast of legislative environment related to legal issues that may affect their department's use of smart contracts. JEL classifications: M12, M5, O33, L20 Keywords: Smart Contract, HRM, Blockchain technology, INTRODUCTION Utilizing smart contracts on a blockchain can improve processes common to human resource management (HRM), including refining applicant verification; accurately and securely tracking individual employees' skills, talents, and tasks; [...]

I. INTRODUCTION The world was introduced to the issue of commercial surrogacy through the British case of Baby Cotton in 1985. (1) Specifically, in the United States (US), the 1988 [...]

INTRODUCTION 288 I. TERMS OF SERVICE AND DIVIDED COURTS 291 A. Introduction to Terms of Service 292 B. Cases Holding That Terms of Service Determine Fourth Amendment Rights 294 C. [...], Almost everything you do on the Internet is governed by Terms of Service. The language in Terms of Service typically gives Internet providers broad rights to address potential account misuse. But do these Terms alter Fourth Amendment rights, either diminishing or even eliminating constitutional rights in Internet accounts? In the last five years, many courts have ruled that they do. These courts treat Terms of Service like a rights contract: by agreeing to use an Internet account subject to broad Terms of Service, you give up your Fourth Amendment rights. This Article argues that the courts are wrong. Terms of Service have little or no effect on Fourth Amendment rights. Fourth Amendment rights are rights against the government, not private parties. Terms of Service can define relationships between private parties, but private contracts cannot define Fourth Amendment rights. This is true across the range of Fourth Amendment doctrines, including the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, consent, abandonment, third-party consent, and the private search doctrine. Courts that have linked Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment rights are mistaken, and their reasoning should be rejected.