for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1250 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (44 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (82 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (20 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (139 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (21 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (165 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (22 journals)
    - LAW (713 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (7 journals)

LAW (713 journals)                  1 2 3 4 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 40)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Afrilex     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Albany Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Alberta Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 56)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Amsterdam Law Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annual Survey of South African Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arena Hukum     Open Access  
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 6)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Article 40     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 18)
Ave Maria Law Review     Free   (Followers: 3)
Badamai Law Journal     Open Access  
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access  
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Brigham Young University Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Bulletin of Legal Medicine     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito - PPGDir./UFRGS     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário     Open Access  
Cahiers, Droit, Sciences et Technologies     Open Access  
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
California Lawyer     Free  
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 150)
Campbell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Časopis zdravotnického práva a bioetiky     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Catholic University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Chicago-Kent Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Free   (Followers: 9)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 42)
Comparative Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Criterio Jurídico     Open Access  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Danube : The Journal of European Association Comenius - EACO     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Rebus     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Defense Counsel Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Der Staat     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 13)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Die Verwaltung     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito e Liberdade     Open Access  
Diritto penale contemporaneo     Free   (Followers: 2)
Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Dixi     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit et Médecine Bucco-Dentaire     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Duke Forum for Law & Social Change     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
DULR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
East Asia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Ecology Law Quarterly     Free   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
El Cotidiano     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Energy Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ESR Review : Economic and Social Rights in South Africa     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
EU agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Journal for Education Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 142)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 35)
European Review of Contract Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 30)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Evaluation Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Faulkner Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Communication Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Federal Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Federal Probation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Feminist Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
feminists@law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Fiat Justisia     Open Access  
First Amendment Studies     Hybrid Journal  
Florida Bar News     Free  
Florida Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Florida State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fordham Environmental Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Fordham Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
FORO. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Geoforum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
George Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 8)
Georgia Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Georgia State University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Global Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)

        1 2 3 4 | Last

Journal Cover Boston College Law Review
  [18 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 0161-6587
   Published by Boston College Homepage  [8 journals]
  • Discriminating Against the Dead: How to Protect Muslim Cemeteries from
           Exclusionary Land Use Mechanisms

    • Authors: Christopher Cataldo
      Abstract: U.S. Muslims face virulent, entrenched opposition in constructing the cemeteries that allow them to bury their dead according to Islamic law and tradition. Despite state and federal laws designed to guard against acts of religious discrimination such as the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), local governments impede Muslim cemetery constructions via zoning ordinances and adjudicative permit denials. As a result of these efforts, Muslims experience unfair discrimination as local land control bodies unduly delay or block their attempts to build cemeteries. To better protect Muslims’ rights in land use disputes, this Note advocates for amendments to RLUIPA’s key provisions, namely, adding a definition of “substantial burden,” delineating what land uses constitute “religious exercise,” and creating measures to punish discriminatory action by local governments.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:21:04 PDT
       
  • Sharing Economy Inequality: How the Adoption of Class Action Waivers in
           the Sharing Economy Presents A Threat to Racial Discrimination Claims

    • Authors: Caitlin Toto
      Abstract: In recent years, the sharing economy has pervaded the life of the consumer, challenging the regulatory and business status quo. Despite the pluralistic messages of many sharing economy companies, racial discrimination is a growing problem on peer-to-peer networks such as Uber and Airbnb. Victims of discrimination, however, have encountered an even greater opponent: class action waivers in arbitration agreements, which are omnipresent in sharing economy company contracts. Due to the inherent tie between class action and civil rights, racial discrimination claims in the sharing economy are held hostage by individual arbitration agreements. This Note argues that without action by Congress or a regulatory agency, such waivers threaten future civil rights enforcement.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:21:01 PDT
       
  • Understanding the Public Trust Doctrine Through Due Process

    • Authors: Michael O'Loughlin
      Abstract: The public trust doctrine (“PTD”) could be a powerful tool for environmental lawyers. It protects the public’s right to use and access resources by placing them in trust with the state and guiding the sovereign’s discretion in their management. Although it lies inherent in sovereignty, the law scatters it across constitutional, statutory, and common law sources, hurting its effectiveness. Understanding the public’s beneficiary interest in this public trust as a due process protected property right would help resolve these failings by placing it under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee against arbitrary deprivations of “life, liberty, or property.” The enduring history of the doctrine suggests that members of the public can reasonably expect the sovereign to respect its trustee obligations, giving them a protected interest. The similarity between the PTD and the police power lends further support. Understanding the PTD as protected by due process would accord with existing PTD precedent and clarify the doctrine’s application in the future, allowing it to become the bedrock of environmental law that it could be.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:58 PDT
       
  • The Threads of Justice: Economic Liberalization and the Secondhand
           Clothing Trade Between the U.S. and Haiti

    • Authors: Kelsey Gasseling
      Abstract: After World War II, as economic liberalization spread across the globe through international negotiations like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, so too did used clothing. Though many proponents of the trade laud its capacity to create employment opportunities in less developed countries, critics suggest it has a more insidious deleterious effect on local industry. To this day, however, little research has been done regarding the symbiotic relationship between trade liberalization and the secondhand clothing industry. Some economic scholars suggest that current approaches to liberal trade—unilateral trade preferences particularly—stymy, instead of stimulate sustainable and just economic growth in less developed countries. The secondhand clothing industry, though a relatively minor component of global trade in apparel, may play a crucial role in justifying inequitable trade programs and allowing well-intentioned donors to unwittingly foist unmanageable burdens onto the very people they intend to help.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:54 PDT
       
  • Saving Lives

    • Authors: Shalini Bhargava Ray
      Abstract: When Alan Kurdi, a Syrian toddler, drowned in the Mediterranean while fleeing civil war in his home country, the world’s attention turned to the Syrian refugee crisis. Offers to transport and house refugees surged. Private boats set out on the Mediterranean Sea to rescue refugees dying in the water. A billionaire offered to purchase an island on which the refugees could live out their lives. This Article analyzes private humanitarian aid to asylum seekers, a subset of migrants whose claims for refugee protection have not yet been filed or adjudicated, and who typically travel without authorization. This Article determines that much of this aid is currently illegal or operates under a cloud of legal uncertainty, principally due to criminal laws prohibiting the smuggling, transport, and harboring of unauthorized migrants. In light of the compelling humanitarian interests at stake, as well as asylum states’ concern for national security, this Article argues for law reform to decriminalize private humanitarian aid to asylum seekers.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:51 PDT
       
  • Employer Liability for Non-Employee Discrimination

    • Authors: Dallan F. Flake
      Abstract: Discrimination against employees by customers, vendors, and other third parties is a serious issue that will likely become even more pressing in the near future. Increased workplace interactions between employees and non-employees, coupled with the societal shift toward subtle, covert, and sometimes even unconscious discrimination, mean non-employee discrimination is likely to become more pervasive—even as it becomes harder to detect. As this perfect storm brews, it is worth considering how judicial treatment of non-employee discrimination can be improved. I argue that one of the most important changes needed is for the law to cease treating discrimination by non-employees and discrimination by fellow employees as one and the same. These forms of discrimination should be analytically distinct because employers generally cannot exercise the same degree of control over non-employees as they can over their own employees. The law can best account for this crucial distinction by holding employers to a reasonableness standard for non-employee discrimination. Under this standard, employers would be liable for the discriminatory actions of third parties if: (1) they knew or should reasonably have known about the discrimination and (2) failed to act reasonably in response to the discrimination. This approach apportions liability more commensurately with the level of control employers can realistically exercise over non-employees, while still incentivizing employers to aggressively monitor and address non-employee discrimination.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:47 PDT
       
  • From Student-Athletes to Employee-Athletes: Why a "Pay for Play" Model of
           College Sports Would Not Necessarily Make Educational Scholarships Taxable
           

    • Authors: Marc Edelman
      Abstract: In recent years, numerous commentators have called for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) to relax its rules prohibiting athlete pay. This movement to allow athletes to share in the revenues of college sports arises from the belief that college athletes sacrifice too much time, personal autonomy, and physical health to justify their lack of pay. It further criticizes the NCAA’s “no pay” rules for keeping the revenues derived from college sports “in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches.” Nevertheless, opponents of “pay for play” contend that several problems will emerge from lifting the NCAA’s “no pay” rules. One problem, opponents argue, is that granting college athletes the legal status of “employees” would convert the athletes’ tax-exempt scholarships into taxable income—a result that may offset any economic benefits of “pay for play.” Their argument, however, is not necessarily accurate. This article discusses the economic and legal landscape of big-time college sports, and introduces the fallacious legal argument that “pay for play” would saddle college athletes with substantial tax liability related to their educational scholarships. This article then provides a brief primer on the U.S. tax code—exploring sections of the code that may allow for paid college athletes to enjoy a tax-free education. Finally, this article explains that proper tax planning may allow colleges to pay their athletes without requiring the athletes to pay taxes on their educational scholarships.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:44 PDT
       
  • The Symmetry Principle

    • Authors: Bradley A. Areheart
      Abstract: Title VII provides symmetrical protection against discrimination in that both blacks and whites, and men and women may avail themselves of the law’s protections. In contrast, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act operates asymmetrically, shielding workers over the age of forty from discrimination yet offering no reciprocal protection for younger workers. Why do some antidiscrimination laws protect symmetrically while others do not' More importantly, why does this design choice matter' These are questions that scholars, courts, and legislators have generally ignored. This Article proceeds in two parts. First, it identifies symmetry as an important, yet frequently overlooked, way in which American antidiscrimination laws differ. Second, it proposes the “symmetry principle” as a major normative theory for analyzing and evaluating the design of antidiscrimination laws. Symmetrical laws have unique expressive, tactical, and substantive strengths. For example, symmetrical laws promote solidarity, are more politically palatable, can more effectively challenge stereotypes, and are capacious enough to respond to unanticipated forms of bias. This Article defends symmetry as a default rule to be applied when addressing traits such as sex, age, and genetic information. To comprehensively combat discrimination, however, the law cannot rely exclusively on symmetry; rather, asymmetrical laws can under certain circumstances be uniquely beneficial. Sometimes a trait is not universally held and is most intelligible as an asymmetric measure, such as in the case of disability. At other times, protecting symmetrically would mean giving advantaged groups a “reverse” cause of action that might further subordinate an already disadvantaged group, such as in the case of disability. Accordingly, this Article defends asymmetrical approaches to disability as well as several race-based policies and doctrines. Taken together, the symmetry principle is capable of imposing some degree of order on the wide-ranging policies and practices in antidiscrimination doctrine. In addition to addressing this previously neglected design choice, and considering how current laws might be modified to better prevent and rectify subordination, the symmetry principle and its analytical framework may also assist future legislative bodies in crafting new antidiscrimination measures that are directed toward formerly unprotected groups.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:20:40 PDT
       
  • Marijuana Legalization and Nosy Neighbor States

    • Authors: Alex Kreit
      Abstract: As more states proceed with marijuana legalization laws, questions have arisen about how to accommodate those states that wish to retain prohibition. For instance, in 2014, Oklahoma and Nebraska unsuccessfully sued Colorado based on the spillover effects that Colorado’s marijuana legalization law had on its neighboring states. This article asserts that there are several reasons why state marijuana legalization laws are unlikely to have a large effect on neighboring states. First, marijuana is not a previously unobtainable good being introduced into the stream of commerce, as it is already available through the black market inexpensively. Second, legalization laws have a number of restrictions that make it very difficult for sellers to profit from exporting legally produced marijuana across state lines. Prohibition states may have reason to worry, however, that illegal marijuana growers will be better able to hide their operations in legalization states that allow residents to grow small amounts of marijuana for personal use, which in turn may increase illegal marijuana exports to neighboring prohibition states. Prohibition states can minimize this risk of increased marijuana flow by lobbying the federal government to establish rules that protect their interests.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:55 PDT
       
  • Marijuana, State Extraterritoriality, and Congress

    • Authors: Mark D. Rosen
      Abstract: The Trump administration inherits the Obama administration’s policy of under-enforcing federal marijuana laws and a nation with a patchwork of divergent state laws. Although allowing diversity and experimentation, such divergence may impose spillover costs to some states. Some states may attempt to address these costs by exercising extraterritorial regulatory powers on their citizens. Although it is unclear and a matter of dispute whether and to what extent states have such extraterritorial authority, this Article shows that it is certain that Congress has power to set the bounds of state extraterritorial regulation, subject to only limited constitutional restraints. The Article then explores several surprising implications of this congressional power. It argues that although Congress would set state extraterritorial powers by means of legislation, most of the considerations informing that legislation would belong to the constitutional domain, not the domain of mere politics. Relying on another work by the author that argues that Congress ought to be governed by Special Norms when it engages in constitutional decisionmaking, this Article shows how such Special Norms would operate in relation to Congress’s determination of state extraterritorial powers.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:51 PDT
       
  • Budding Conflicts: Marijuana's Impact on Unsettled Questions of
           Tribal-State Relations

    • Authors: Katherine J. Florey
      Abstract: In the wake of a December 2014 decision by the Department of Justice to deprioritize enforcement of federal marijuana laws against tribes as well as states, many tribes have reevaluated their policies toward marijuana. Tribal attitudes toward marijuana are diverse; some tribes regard marijuana as a public health menace, whereas others see it as a source of economic opportunity. Where tribal policies are significantly more or less restrictive than those of the surrounding state, tribal-state relations have often suffered friction. The problem is particularly acute given the jurisdictional uncertainty that characterizes Indian country and the absence of any equivalent to the conflict-mediating doctrines that help to smooth interstate relations. As a result, federal intervention may be needed to protect tribal sovereignty and resolve tribal-state conflict; any such action should be guided by recognizing the successes and failures of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:47 PDT
       
  • One Toke Too Far: The Demise of the Dormant Commerce Clause's
           Extraterritoriality Doctrine Threatens the Marijuana-Legalization
           Experiment

    • Authors: Chad DeVeaux
      Abstract: This Article argues that the pending feuds between neighboring states over marijuana decriminalization demonstrate the need for a strict doctrine limiting a state’s regulatory authority to its own borders. Precedent recognizes that the dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) “precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.” This prohibition protects “the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres” by dictating that “[n]o state has the authority to tell other polities what laws they must enact or how affairs must be conducted.” But this principle was called into doubt in July 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in an opinion by Judge (now Justice) Neil Gorsuch, which concluded that this “most dormant doctrine in [DCC] jurisprudence” had withered and died from nonuse. The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion, which approved Colorado’s purported direct regulation of coal-fired power generation in Nebraska, ironically coincided with Nebraska’s attempt to enjoin Colorado’s pot-friendly laws. Nebraska contends that Colorado’s commercial pot market allows marijuana to “flow . . . into [Nebraska], undermining [its] own marijuana ban[], draining [its] treasur[y], and placing stress on [its] criminal justice system[].” While Colorado celebrated its newfound power to impose its legislative judgments on Nebraskans, the festivities might be short-lived. Colorado failed to recognize the impact the extraterritorial doctrine’s apparent demise may have on its own marijuana-legalization experiment. If Colorado is empowered to regulate coal burning in Nebraska because of its effects in Colorado, what prevents Nebraska from projecting its own laws across the border to regulate Colorado marijuana transactions that affect a substantial number of Nebraskans'
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:43 PDT
       
  • Policy, Preemption, and Pot: Extra-Territorial Citizen Jurisdiction

    • Authors: Gabriel J. Chin
      Abstract: In contemporary America, legislators send messages about values through symbolic legislation and lawsuits. One conflict is between states where marijuana is legal and others that continue to ban it. This Article evaluates what might happen if anti-marijuana states made it illegal for their citizens to purchase or use marijuana, borrowing a page from the playbook of activists opposed to reproductive choice who propose that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, individuals could be prohibited from traveling to another state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Although such laws would be hard to enforce, they still present important questions of state authority. The Supreme Court has recognized state jurisdiction over citizens and over state territory. If, say, Alabama prohibited gambling in its territory, or by its citizens anywhere in the world, while Nevada’s public policy was to allow gambling in its territory, a difficult conflict would be presented. However, the marijuana controversy does not present the same problem. Federal law categorically prohibits possession, use, and distribution of marijuana. In order to hold that state marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban, courts have found that the states do not have a public policy in favor of marijuana, they merely decline to prohibit it. As a result, the policies of the anti-marijuana states do not conflict with the interests of other states in the way that states opposed to abortion or gambling might conflict with states affirmatively allowing those activities. Although the law in this area is not particularly developed, making reliable prediction difficult, a state’s national ban on marijuana seems much more likely to pass muster than would a ban on activities affirmatively promoted by another state.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:40 PDT
       
  • A General Theory of Preemption: With Comments on State Decriminalization
           of Marijuana

    • Authors: Lea Brilmayer
      Abstract: Marijuana decriminalization is a hotly debated topic, which has nonetheless seen popular support in recent years. Current federal law (the Controlled Substances Act) conflicts with many state decriminalization efforts, raising the obvious question of federal preemption. The Supreme Court has failed to provide a clear answer on how much federal law preempts state marijuana decriminalization laws. This Article identifies the foundational principles of vertical and horizontal preemption, as well as various unanswered questions regarding these doctrines. It then applies these questions to marijuana decriminalization. Ultimately, it argues that there is a weak case for vertical or horizontal preemption in the marijuana decriminalization context.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:36 PDT
       
  • Reefer Madness: How Non-Legalizing States Can Revamp Dram Shop Laws to
           Protect Themselves from Marijuana Spillover from Their Legalizing
           Neighbors

    • Authors: Jessica Berch
      Abstract: Reefer madness is sweeping the nation. Despite a federal ban on marijuana, states have begun to legalize medical and, increasingly, recreational use of the drug. As more states legalize marijuana, their non-legalizing neighbors have seen a distinct uptick in marijuana possession and use—and an attendant increase in crime and accidents. In December 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma, non-legalizing states that border Colorado, a trail-blazer in the full-legalization movement, requested permission to file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court over their neighbor’s lax marijuana controls, which allow cannabis to come into their states. The Supreme Court denied leave to file. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the question remains: What can prohibiting states do to protect themselves from cross-boundary spillover' This Article surveys various litigation—and statutory—options and ultimately determines that prohibiting states should, at a minimum, consider enacting laws modeled on Dram Shop Acts, which create liability against those who sell alcohol to already intoxicated people or minors who then injure third-party victims. These revamped “Gram Shop Acts” would create liability against out-of-state marijuana dispensaries that sell to Home State buyers who, while high, injure third parties in the Home State or those who are residents of the Home State. Gram Shop Acts may help prohibiting states shift some of the costs of marijuana legalization back to those states that foster its use by deterring sales to citizens residing in non-legalizing states and by providing compensation to third-party victims.
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:32 PDT
       
  • Introduction: Marijuana Laws and Federalism

    • Authors: Erwin Chemerinsky
      PubDate: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:27:28 PDT
       
  • Deference to the Agency Is the Best Policy: The D.C. Circuit Applies
           Chevron in Denying Additional Medicare Reimbursements to Provider
           Hospitals in Washington Regional Medicorp

    • Authors: Brandon Curtin
      Abstract: On December 29, 2015, in Washington Regional Medicorp v. Burwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) correctly interpreted the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”) in calculating Medicare reimbursements for a provider hospital based on the capped target amount from the previous year. In agreeing with the Secretary, the D.C. Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Sixth Circuits in holding that the statute and its implementing regulations supported the Secretary. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in contrast, has held that the regulations unambiguously compel the contrary conclusion, namely, that the Secretary should base her calculation on a hospital-specific target amount. This Comment argues that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of TEFRA is the right one. It correctly applies the Chevron analysis, deferring to HHS, while also noting that HHS’s reading is the best one. In doing so, the D.C. Circuit also fulfills the congressional intent to transfer hospitals from a system of hospital-specific reimbursements to a decidedly more objective system of reimbursements.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:21 PDT
       
  • Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz: Is the Manager Rule Dead? The Ninth Circuit
           Holds That Fair Notice Is the Appropriate Test for Whether a Managerial
           Employee's Activity Is Protected Under the FLSA

    • Authors: Alyssa Fixsen
      Abstract: On December 14, 2015, in Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the proper test for when an employee’s actions constituted a protected complaint under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) was whether the employer had fair notice that the actions were a complaint. In holding that the employee’s managerial status did not change the analytical framework, the Ninth Circuit diverged from previous rulings in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits that required managerial employees to assert adverse action against their employers to receive anti-retaliation protection. This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit’s use of a single test for both managerial and non-managerial employees is correct in that it allows for more robust enforcement of the FLSA, and is thus in keeping with Congress’ objective in passing the FLSA.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 May 2017 13:38:18 PDT
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.224.50.28
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016