Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

LAW (843 journals)                  1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 17)
Acta Judicial     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis : Folia Iuridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access  
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 40)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 28)
Ahkam : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Ahkam : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 22)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Al 'Adalah : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
AL Rafidain law journal     Open Access  
Al-Ahkam     Open Access  
Al-Istinbath : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Alberta Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 64)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Anales : Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata     Open Access  
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Annales de droit     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul     Open Access  
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio G (Ius)     Open Access  
Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade - Belgrade Law Review     Open Access  
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho : Universidad de Extremadura (AFDUE)     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbeidsrett     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access  
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 3)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 4)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 71)
ASAS : Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Asia Pacific Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Asian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Australian Year Book of International Law Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 20)
BestuuR     Open Access  
Bioderecho.es     Open Access  
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo     Open Access  
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 16)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bratislava Law Review     Open Access  
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi NLU : Series : Philosophy, philosophy of law, political science, sociology     Open Access  
Business and Human Rights Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access  
Cahiers de la Recherche sur les Droits Fondamentaux     Open Access  
Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 174)
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Canadian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Católica Law Review     Open Access  
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
China Law and Society Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Chinese Journal of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9)
Chulalongkorn Law Journal     Open Access  
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Clínica Jurídica per la Justícia Social : Informes     Open Access  
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Columbia Journal of Gender and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Columbia Journal of Race and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Columbia Journal of Tax Law     Open Access  
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 50)
Comparative Legal History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Comparative Legilinguistics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36)
Conflict Trends     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 12)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Corporate Law & Governance Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
Danube     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
De Europa     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Debater a Europa     Open Access  
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derechos en Acción     Open Access  
Dereito : Revista Xurídica da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela     Full-text available via subscription  
Deusto Journal of Human Rights     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
DiH : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum     Open Access  
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Dikê : Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica     Open Access  
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito.UnB : Revista de Direito da Universidade de Brasília     Open Access  
Dixi     Open Access  
DLR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Doxa : Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 27)
e-Pública : Revista Eletrónica de Direito Público     Open Access  
Economics and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 26)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Erasmus Law Review     Open Access  
Erdélyi Jogélet     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Estudios de Derecho     Open Access  
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
EU Agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
European Convention on Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 192)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 47)

        1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Duke Law Journal
Journal Prestige (SJR): 1.116
Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 27  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 0012-7086
Published by Duke University Press Homepage  [20 journals]
  • The Last Black Tobacco Union: Local 208, Segregated Seniority, and the
           Integrating South

    • Authors: Kathy Rong Zhou
      Abstract: After federal reforms in the 1930s protected the right to organize, the Tobacco Workers International Union made quick work of mobilizing the American South. Its unions, though segregated, made strides. Yet Black unions’ collective bargaining gains could not transcend one of the South’s most oppressive employment practices: segregated systems for worker seniority. One Black union, Local 208 at Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company in Durham, North Carolina, fought for seniority rights for more than three decades. During this time, the federal government increasingly pressured Southern industry and labor to desegregate. Steadfast, Local 208 refused to merge with any white union until its members attained a more equitable seniority system. This start-to-finish history of Local 208 demonstrates how federal desegregation initiatives both encouraged and interfered with Black workers’ fight against discrimination. Embodying the post–Civil War, pre–Civil Rights Act era of Black Southern tobacco labor, Local 208’s decades-long fight presents a precise illustration of the need for the landmark Title VII remedies soon to come.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:35:09 PDT
       
  • Journal Staff

    • PubDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:35:09 PDT
       
  • The Dead Hand of a Silent Past: Bruen, Gun Rights, and the Shackles of
           History

    • Authors: Jacob D. Charles
      Abstract: In June 2022, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s concealed carry licensing law on Second Amendment grounds. In that decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court declared that future Second Amendment challenges should be evaluated solely with reference to text, history, and tradition. By requiring historical precedent for any modern regulation, that test is essentially sui generis in the Court’s individual-rights jurisprudence. Yet it represents both an extension of an increasingly historically focused Supreme Court case law and a harbinger of potential doctrinal transformations in other domains.This Article critically assesses Bruen’s test and, in the process, raises concerns about other areas of rights jurisprudence trending in ever more historically inflected directions. In critiquing Bruen’s method, the Article foregrounds the unsatisfying justifications for the novel test and several unworkable features. Centrally, it underscores how Bruen’s emphasis on historical silence imbues an absent past with more explanatory power than it can bear—or than the Court attempts to justify. The Article then synthesizes and analyzes the results from more than three hundred lower federal court decisions applying Bruen, which collectively reveal the test’s fundamental unworkability.On top of that descriptive and critical work, the Article makes several prescriptive arguments about possible judicial and legislative responses to the decision. For judges, the Article endorses and amplifies arguments about the use of neutral historical experts appointed by courts, identifies ways that lower courts can usefully underline Bruen’s gaps and mitigate its open texture, and suggests that courts are justified in reading Bruen narrowly. For lawmakers, it argues that when legislatures pass new gun laws, they ought to be explicit about four types of evidence for the law’s constitutionality that track Bruen’s new demands: the purpose for the law, the expected burden on armed self-defense, the precise nature of the problem to which the law is directed, and the historical tradition from which the law springs.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:35:08 PDT
       
  • Norm Commandeering and the Tobacco Trust

    • Authors: George F. K. Werner
      Abstract: In the early 1870s, Durham became a major center of tobacco marketing. Farmers brought their crops to auction warehouses, which then sold them to the town’s manufacturers. This was a process facilitated by a well-developed system of social norms. But the formation of the American Tobacco Company’s “tobacco trust” in the 1890s threatened that arrangement—buyers conspired to pay less per pound of tobacco, and warehousemen lost the ability to police buyers’ conduct. When farmers attempted to organize in response, geographic and social distance caused their efforts to fail. By the time federal courts dissolved the trust in 1911, the damage had already been done.This Note’s historical analysis will be relevant for scholars of both informal ordering and competition law. For the former, it shows that some norm systems depend on the presence of competition. Informal ordering can, of course, also be a response to a lack of competition. But the possibility of collective action problems means that attempts to organize in reaction will often fail. For scholars of competition law, the possibility of norm commandeering provides a concrete example of how concentrated market power can affect economic and social dynamics.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:35:08 PDT
       
  • Fact Stripping

    • Authors: Joseph Blocher et al.
      Abstract: Appellate fact review in constitutional litigation has never been more important. Whether someone’s rights were violated often turns on what happened—matters of fact—and not solely on matters of law. That makes it all the more striking that the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly reversed rulings of lower courts based on factual disagreement, given that such factfinding is typically entitled to significant appellate deference. Scholars and would-be reformers have noted many problems with appellate factfinding, but have tended to assume that the Court itself has final say on the applicable standard of review.Yet as a matter of constitutional law, the Supreme Court is not the factfinder in chief. Article III gives Congress power to define the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact” and Article I gives Congress power to “constitute” the inferior federal courts. Congress can, by statute, require Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges to view the factual record with some level of deference. We call this approach “fact stripping.” It is different than the more familiar jurisdiction stripping—the much-discussed power of Congress to take away the federal courts’ power to hear certain kinds of cases—and raises fewer constitutional or legitimacy concerns. And if done properly, it can instead protect rights by shifting power from appellate judges to trial judges and jurors better able to find the facts.Our focus is on use of fact stripping regarding constitutional claims in lower federal courts, but Congress has already regulated the review of constitutional facts—with the Supreme Court’s approval—in other important areas of law. For example, in federal habeas corpus, Congress has mandated more deference by restricting appellate factual review, while in some areas of administrative adjudication, such as immigration, it has required less factual deference (that is, more review) than the constitutional floor would require.How Congress should exercise this constitutional power is primarily a question of how best to allocate power within the judiciary, and thus raises questions of institutional competence, including the role of appellate courts in law development and establishing uniformity, as well as the importance of robust factfinding in constitutional cases. Congress, however, need not agree with where the Supreme Court has drawn those lines, and might want to re-allocate factfinding power to the trial courts. Our goal here is not to prescribe a particular form of fact-stripping legislation, but to suggest that congressional regulation of appellate constitutional factfinding is one of many possible responses to a Supreme Court that has increasingly arrogated factfinding power to itself.
      PubDate: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:35:07 PDT
       
  • Gonzalez V. Google: The Case For Collecting "Targeted
           Recommendations"

    • Authors: Tomer Kenneth et al.
      Abstract: Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protect online platforms (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter) when they use recommendation algorithms' Lower courts upheld platforms’ immunity, notwithstanding notable dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court considers this question in Gonzalez v Google, LLC. Plaintiffs invite the Court to analyze “targeted recommendations” generically and to revoke Section 230 immunity for all recommended content. We think this would be a mistake.This Article contributes to existing scholarship about Section 230 and online speech governance by adding much needed clarity to the desirable—and undesirable—regulation of recommendation algorithms. Specifically, this Article explains the technology behind algorithmic recommendations, the questions it raises for Section 230 immunity, and the stakes in Gonzalez. It opposes generically revoking Section 230 immunity for all uses of recommendation algorithms. Instead, it illustrates and defends a nuanced approach for the desired outcome of Gonzalez and for future possible regulation of recommendation algorithms. Copyright
      PubDate: Mon, 01 May 2023 08:00:51 PDT
       
  • Journal Staff

    • PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:52:30 PDT
       
  • Nudges, Defaults, and the Problem of Constructed Preferences

    • Authors: Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
      Abstract: Regulatory bodies have increasingly become interested in “nudges,” or low-cost adjustments to the environment in which people make choices. These interventions promise to give more people what they truly want while preserving freedom of choice. In theory, default rules—a type of nudge—that can survive a thorough cost-benefit analysis should both preserve liberty and enhance welfare. In reality, altering default rules can also change people’s preferences. Neutral cost-benefit analysis is thus impossible, and choosing a default rule therefore influences personal freedom. This Article explains how nudges influence preferences and why this makes neutral cost-benefit analysis impossible for regulators.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:52:29 PDT
       
  • The Enforcement Value of Disclosure

    • Authors: Stephanie Bornstein
      Abstract: Information disclosures often “nudge” consumers to make better choices—for example, when manufacturers include nutrition labels on food packaging or fuel economy standards on cars. Yet having to disclose can have a nudge effect on the disclosing entity, too—for example, by incentivizing a manufacturer to make healthier food or more fuel-efficient cars. Recently, regulators around the world have begun to use information disclosures to improve racial and gender equality—for example, by requiring certain businesses to disclose information on things like harassment complaints, board diversity, and employee pay. But are such disclosure efforts worth their costs' And what would indicate that policymakers should continue or expand similar measures'This Article addresses how to evaluate what it refers to as “equality disclosures,” highlighting the need to account for the often overlooked public enforcement value of the nudge on the disclosing entity. When measuring disclosure as a behaviorally informed intervention, we tend to focus on the welfare effects on the consumer of the information—the now-informed person who chooses (or declines) to eat the food or purchase the car. But disclosure requirements also affect the behavior of the producer of the information, thus serving an important enforcement role in the administrative state. Any assessment of the value of equality disclosures must include the public benefit gained when the act of having to disclose nudges disclosing entities toward self-monitoring and legal compliance.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:52:29 PDT
       
  • Welfare Now

    • Authors: Cass R. Sunstein
      Abstract: In evaluating interventions, policymakers should consider both their welfare effects, including their effects on people’s emotional states, and their effects on distributive justice, including their effects on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The arguments for investigating welfare effects, and effects on distributive justice, are meant as objections to efforts to evaluate behaviorally informed interventions solely in terms of (for example) revealed preferences and effects on participation rates. The arguments are also meant as a plea for investigation and specification of the effects of such interventions on experienced well-being. If interventions give people a sense of security and safety, that is a strong point in their favor; if they make people feel frightened and sad, that is a strong point against them. A central concern is that policymakers sometimes neglect the emotional impact, whether negative or positive, of behaviorally informed interventions. Personalized approaches can promote distributive goals and also target interventions to those who are most likely to be helped by them.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:52:28 PDT
       
  • The Private Cost of Behavioral Interventions

    • Authors: Avishalom Tor
      Abstract: The increasing popularity of behavioral interventions—also known as nudges—is largely due to their perceived potential to promote public and private welfare at dramatically lower costs than those of traditional regulatory instruments, such as mandates or taxes. Yet, though nudges typically involve low implementation costs, scholars and policymakers alike tend to underestimate their often-substantial private costs. Once these costs are accounted for, most nudges turn out to generate significantly lower net benefits than assumed, and some prove less efficient or less cost-effective than traditional instruments. At other times, the private costs of behavioral interventions are sufficiently large to render them socially costly and undesirable even in the absence of superior traditional instruments. Policymakers who implement nudges without considering their private costs therefore risk doing harm rather than good.
      PubDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:52:28 PDT
       
  • Tax Intelligence

    • Authors: Kathleen Claussen
      Abstract: At the start of 2023, tax policymakers are increasingly contemplating how tax law and policy could bolster U.S. foreign policy goals. The most recent proposals seek to leverage information gathered from tax reporting—what this Essay calls “tax intelligence.” However, front and center in considering how tax intelligence can be used to make foreign policy is a challenge: how that information can make its way through the grinder of our foreign commerce bureaucracy in furtherance of productive outcomes. To address this challenge and amplify the promise of these proposals, this Essay offers four contributions. First, it demonstrates that these proposals make an essential move in tax that is consistent with and reinforcing of a trend in other areas of U.S. geoeconomic strategy: they urge intensified reliance on firms as subjects, inputs, targets, and collaborators in foreign policymaking. Second, it argues that commentators are underselling the intelligence value of reporting. Third, this Essay contends that a better administrative infrastructure is sorely needed for tax as well as for other foreign economic instruments to make these reporting efforts successful. Fourth, this Essay concludes that bringing tax into the toolkit could have an unexpected and ironic normalizing effect on geoeconomic policies in our regulatory system. Given that tax law is itself often considered exceptional, bringing it into the collection of emergency foreign commercial tools is likely to make these tools appear less extraordinary—for better and for worse.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 05:20:57 PDT
       
  • Journal Staff

    • PubDate: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:52:29 PDT
       
  • Not Up For Deliberation: Expanding the Peña-Rodriguez Protection to Cover
           Jury Bias Against LGBTQ+ Individuals

    • Authors: Brett V. Ries
      Abstract: Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals persists within the United States criminal justice system, which is no surprise given the history of LGBTQ+ discrimination in the United States. Evidence of jurors convicting LGBTQ+ defendants—or, in some extreme cases, sentencing them to death—because of the defendant’s queer identity is especially concerning.Standing in the way of protecting LGBTQ+ defendants from LGBTQ+ bias in jury deliberations is Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which prohibits defendants from using juror testimony regarding jury deliberations to impeach the jury’s verdict. However, in 2017, the Supreme Court in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado provided an exception to this “no-impeachment rule” for clear statements of racial bias that significantly motivated the juror’s decision. The Supreme Court has a history of extending protections against racial discrimination in the jury context to sex discrimination, and, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that the prohibition against sex discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, there may be multiple constitutional avenues to expanding the protection granted in Peña-Rodriguez to LGBTQ+ bias in jury deliberations.This Note argues that such an expansion can soundly be constitutionally granted, particularly when analyzed from an intersectional perspective. Only then can the criminal justice system ensure that LGBTQ+ defendants are punished for what they do, not who they are or who they love.
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:52:28 PDT
       
  • No Harm, No Problem (In State Court): Why States Should Reject Injury in
           Fact

    • Authors: Rebekah G. Strotman
      Abstract: New judicial federalism urges states to extend their constitutional protections beyond the federal Constitution’s. Yet the scholarship has largely ignored justiciability doctrines—including standing—that dictate the requirements for suing in court. Meanwhile, the federal injury in fact requirement has been debated for years, with critics claiming it is ahistorical and overly restrictive. States, though, are not bound by Article III and can reject the federal standing doctrine. Some states have. In fact, the same year the Supreme Court doubled down on injury in fact by stating “no concrete harm, no standing,” the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected injury in fact and adopted a more permissive legal injury requirement. But the North Carolina Supreme Court’s main rationale was that the federal doctrine is wrong itself. This rests on the mistaken assumption that state and federal courts should have the same standing doctrines. On the contrary, states are not tied to the federal doctrine in any way. This Note explains why states should reject the federal doctrine regardless of whether it is right for federal courts: injury in fact addresses uniquely federal concerns. Federal power grew in response to federal crises and political realities, and, in reaction, the Court used injury in fact to pull the federal judiciary back within its intended limits. Thus, the concerns and values underlying injury in fact are inapplicable to states. Instead of adopting injury in fact, states should adopt more permissive standing doctrines. Such doctrines would be consistent with states’ broader judicial power and would effectuate the goals of the new judicial federalism.
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:52:28 PDT
       
  • The Accidental Innovation Policymakers

    • Authors: Rachel E. Sachs
      Abstract: Health care policymakers in the United States, particularly at the federal level, have recently considered a range of proposals that would lower prices for prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry and many politicians have argued that these proposals would harm innovation incentives, resulting in fewer new drugs coming to market in the future. This Article identifies and explores a key problem with this argument: that it is typically deployed both accidentally and asymmetrically in nature. Specifically, this Article considers previous changes to health laws that had the impact of increasing innovation incentives by providing large new subsidies to pharmaceutical companies—chiefly the creation of Medicare Part D and the passage of the Affordable Care Act—but where policymakers appear not to have analyzed these innovation-related aspects of the new laws. By contrasting these laws with others in which policymakers explicitly centered the innovation-related impacts of their actions, such as the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Orphan Drug Act, this Article suggests that policymakers may in some cases be making innovation policy “by accident,” without knowledge of their likely results. These innovation arguments are also deployed asymmetrically by interested stakeholders, creating the potential for unbalanced policymaking over time. This Article further analyzes the implications of this accidental, asymmetric policymaking for innovation law and policy.
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:52:27 PDT
       
  • Effecting Free Exercise and Equal Protection

    • Authors: Laura Portuondo
      Abstract: There is an emerging discrepancy in free exercise and equal protection law. For decades, the Supreme Court has maintained that a law’s effects on a protected group are usually insufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny under either the Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clause. This longstanding rule has rendered it virtually impossible to challenge facially neutral laws on constitutional race, sex, and religious discrimination grounds, even where such laws inflict substantial harms on protected groups. Recent free exercise decisions, however, have abandoned this traditional barrier to enforcing constitutional equality rights. In doing so, they have subverted the usual rule that a law’s effects do not much matter, not just under the Free Exercise Clause, but also under the Equal Protection Clause.This Article argues that recent free exercise law makes a powerful case that a law’s effects both can and should play a meaningful role in triggering equal protection scrutiny. Free exercise and equal protection cases historically relied on the same theoretical and doctrinal principles to dismiss a meaningful role for effects in triggering heightened scrutiny. Recent free exercise law—by providing such a role for effects—has overcome each objection. In the process, it has created a doctrinal roadmap for overcoming the same objections in the equal protection context. It has also provided good reason to do so. Recent free exercise decisions have justified attention to effects by insisting that laws that devalue protected interests merit heightened scrutiny. In doing so, they have endorsed a broad new theory of equality that applies to, and requires attention to effects in, the equal protection context.
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:52:27 PDT
       
  • Murder and Money: The Dark Side of Taylor Swift

    • Authors: Frederick E. Vars
      Abstract: Under the dramatically named “Slayer Rule,” murderers cannot inherit from their victims. This principle is so intuitive that it is easy to miss critical questions of implementation. One such question is: What if one cannot prove the murder with certainty' Should the Slayer Rule apply only to individuals convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murder, or should some lower level of proof suffice' This essay examines those questions through an unlikely lens: the music of Taylor Swift.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:00:41 PST
       
  • Journal Staff

    • PubDate: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 06:43:39 PST
       
  • Legal Strategies to Minimize Subway Air Pollution in the United States

    • Authors: Maia Foster
      Abstract: Air pollution in U.S. subway systems poses a major threat to public health. People in subway stations breathe in dangerously high levels of dusts, called particulate matter. Current legislation does not effectively address this problem; in fact, the United States does not have a comprehensive indoor air quality law at all. Left unregulated, people regularly exposed to subway air pollution could suffer respiratory and cardiovascular issues and even premature death.To mitigate these health effects, some countries have imposed PM standards in subway systems and underground spaces. Others have standards covering all indoor spaces. In the United States, many subway systems have begun exploring technologies to filter subway air in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. To support their efforts and innovation, the United States should enact legislation establishing a grant and loan program for subway systems’ air-purifying initiatives. Modeled after the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, this law would adopt a carrot-based approach to effectively reduce subway air pollution, allowing each system to tailor initiatives to their unique characteristics. While the United States should explore a mandatory standards-based approach long term, it should prioritize this legislation to protect the public more quickly from this ongoing threat.
      PubDate: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 05:48:41 PST
       
 
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
 


Your IP address: 3.236.46.172
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-