JournalTOCs

Publisher: Georgia State University (Total: 1 journals) [Sort by number of followers]

Showing 1 - 1 of 1 Journals sorted alphabetically
	Georgia State University Law Review (Followers: 2)

Most Followed Journals

Top Publishers

Top Subjects

Similar Journals

Georgia State University Law Review
Number of Followers: 2

This is an Open Access Journal

Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 8755-6847
Published by Georgia State University

[1 journal]

Canary in a Coal Mine: What It Means to Lose a Constitutional Right
- Authors: Mary Ziegler
  Abstract: Remarks on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization by Mary Ziegler at the 66th Henry J. Miller Distinguished Lecture
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:38 PDT
Correcting Crooked Licensing Boards with a Revolving-Door Statute
- Authors: Ronnie Thompson
  Abstract: Contrary to conventional wisdom, occupational licensing restrictions do not serve a primary purpose of protecting consumers. They instead wage war on the market economy. This reality is unsurprising when one considers the makeup of a typical licensing board, which consists primarily of active market participants. These industry incumbents scheme to keep potential competitors out. Entrance exams for florists and onerous educational requirements for interior designers—absurd as they seem—become the rule rather than the exception. Despite their propensity for anticompetitive conduct, licensing boards elude review under the Sherman Act, the nation’s chief law regulating anticompetitive conduct. Licensing boards need not defend their self-interested conduct thanks to a line of Supreme Court cases that establish relatively sweeping immunity.Rather than rework an entire body of case law, this Note recommends a statutory solution to confront crooked licensing boards. States should look to the federal revolving-door statute for inspiration. Though the revolving-door statute addresses a slightly different subject in imposing lobbying bans on former executive branch officials, similar concerns of corruption predominate among licensing boards. Accordingly, states should craft their own revolving-door statutes and bar active market participants from occupying a majority of any licensing board’s membership.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:32 PDT
High Time to Revisit Federal Drug Sentencing: The Confusing Interplay
Between Controlled Substances and Career Offender Sentence Enhancements
- Authors: Carly Knight
  Abstract: The 1970s in the United States were largely defined by wars, both foreign and domestic: the Vietnam War and the War on Drugs, respectively. As part of President Richard Nixon’s anti-drug offensive, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA organized—and criminalized—various drugs into schedules based on their permissible uses and potential for abuse. As states enacted their own versions of the CSA, some states chose to criminalize additional substances that were not included in the CSA.The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) followed the CSA. Under federal law, criminal defendants may be subject to a “career offender” sentencing enhancement, which can substantially increase incarceration time, if they have at least two prior felony drug or violent crime convictions. The sentencing guidelines are vague and currently allow state court drug convictions, predicated on substances that are not criminalized under the CSA, to create the basis for a career offender sentencing enhancement under federal law. This Note suggests that the United States Sentencing Commission should revise the Guidelines to make clear that only convictions for drugs that are criminalized under the CSA may serve as predicate offenses for federal sentence enhancements. That is, where states choose to enact drug laws that criminalize more substances than the CSA, convictions under those overbroad laws cannot serve as the basis for a federal career offender sentence enhancement.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:26 PDT
Degrees of Losing: A Challenge to the Federal "Frozen Benefit
Rule"
- Authors: Tuscan A. Fairfield
  Abstract: The 2016 amendment to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act dramatically changed the level of discretion afforded to states in dividing military retired pay between divorcing parties. Now, all divorces involving an active service member at the time of divorce must adhere to Congress’s strict formula when dividing the former spouse’s interest in the service member’s pension. This Note explores the question of whether Congress overstepped its constitutional limitations in directing the actions of state courts, whether the new rule may violate principles of equal protection doctrine, and whether a challenge to the novel scheme has any chance of success. This Note proposes a potential challenge and, finally, asks why we should treat military service members and their money differently in the first place.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:20 PDT
Trading Nonenforcement
- Authors: Ryan Snyder
  Abstract: In recent years, federal agencies have increasingly used nonenforcement as a bargaining chip—promising not to enforce a legal requirement in exchange for a regulated party’s promise to do something else that the law doesn't require. This Article takes an in-depth look at how these nonenforcement trades work, why agencies and regulated parties make them, and the effects they have on social policy. The Article argues that these trades pose serious risks: Agencies often use trading to evade procedural and substantive limits on their power. The trades themselves present fairness problems, both because they tend to reward large, well-connected firms and because they often coerce regulated parties that lack bargaining power. Moreover, the agency’s nonenforcement promises aren’t binding—thus, even if a regulated party upholds its end of the bargain, the agency can always renege on the deal. The Article concludes by identifying several possible solutions that might discourage agencies from trading nonenforcement.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:15 PDT
Public Good Through Charter Schools'
- Authors: Philip Hackney
  Abstract: Should nonprofit charter schools be considered “charitable” under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and be entitled to the benefits that go with that designation (income tax exemption, charitable contribution deduction, etc.)' Current tax law treats them as such; the question is whether there is a good rationale for this treatment. In addition to efficiency and equity, I consider political justice as a value in evaluating tax policy. By political justice, I mean a democratic system that prioritizes the opportunity for more people to have a voice in collective decisions (political voice equality or PVE). Thus, a tax policy that decreases PVE violates the value of political justice. Efficiency theory and equity provide modest help in evaluating the charter question, but the tool of political justice provides important value. When viewed in its entirety, granting tax exemption to charter organizations violates the norm of political justice. The charter movement takes decision-making regarding community education away from a community and gives it to private parties. Instead of the community controlling major educational decisions, charter management organizations control those decisions. Still, valid democratic authorities across the country have chosen to provide some education through charter vehicles. Given the strong interest in keeping tax policy in harmony with democratically chosen policies, the most ideal solution to this conflict would be to maintain tax exemption. However, to be charitable, a charter school and its management organization ought to be democratically operated in some broad sense. The Article thus suggests some ways to increase the democratic accountability of charters.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:09 PDT
The Literary Language of Privacy—How Judges' Use of Literature
Reveals Images of Privacy in the Law
- Authors: Elizabeth De Armond
  Abstract: George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. When we think of literary works and privacy, that is the first book that comes to mind, and the same is true for judges penning privacy law opinions too. Although the novel is notable for expressing fears of authoritarian overreach, other literary works offer judges a tool for describing the plights of parties before them—parties who seek to vindicate breaches of privacy in many different forms. Nineteen Eighty-Four particularly suits cases that challenge government surveillance or non-governmental wiretapping. References to Franz Kafka and Joseph Heller illuminate other privacy harms, such as unease with governmental collection, manipulation, and release of data. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter comments on punishment via exposure of stigmatizing information. William Shakespeare, centuries ago, spoke knowingly of the peculiar pain arising from injury to one’s reputation.Judges have referenced all these works in majority and dissenting opinions to help make concrete the often amorphous, but still very real, damage that privacy breaches can cause. This Article organizes many of these opinions according to the type of privacy invasion and provides examples of how judges’ language can help us show why the law provides remedies, however imperfect and unevenly provided, for privacy harms.
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 19:00:03 PDT
Faculty Masthead
- Authors: Georgia State University Law Review
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:59:52 PDT
Member Masthead
- Authors: Georgia State University Law Review
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:59:46 PDT
First Inside Page
- Authors: Georgia State University Law Review
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:59:35 PDT
Inside Front Cover Page
- Authors: Georgia State University Law Review
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:59:29 PDT
Spring 2023 Cover Page
- Authors: Georgia State University Law Review
  PubDate: Tue, 30 May 2023 18:59:23 PDT