scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.


Papers
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: The authors examines the appropriate balance between public and private enforcement of statutes seeking to distribute resources or social services to a socioeconomically diverse set of beneficiaries through a case study of the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), focusing particularly on the extent to which the Act's enforcement regime sufficiently enforces the law for the poor.
Abstract: This Article examines the appropriate balance between public and private enforcement of statutes seeking to distribute resources or social services to a socioeconomically diverse set of beneficiaries through a case study of the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It focuses particularly on the extent to which the Act’s enforcement regime sufficiently enforces the law for the poor. The Article responds to the frequent contention that private enforcement of statutory regimes is necessary to compensate for the shortcomings of public enforcement. Public enforcement, the story goes, is inefficient and relies on underfunded, captured, or impotent government agencies, while private parties are appropriately incentivized to act as private attorneys general. This Article challenges that argument as not applicable to all circumstances. Instead, it uses the IDEA to identify certain features of institutional design that can make heavy reliance on private enforcement lead to predictable disparities in enforcement in favor of wealthier beneficiaries as opposed to poor beneficiaries, in contravention of the stated goals of some statutes. These features of institutional design include universal rather than means-tested service provision distributed by relying on nontransparent, nonprecedential, private bargaining over a highly individualized system where the contours of the right are determined through significant amounts of agency discretion. Where these features are present, the Article argues, greater attention to public enforcement, as opposed to private enforcement, is likely to be necessary if the goal is to avoid enforcement disparities in favor of wealthier beneficiaries. Alternatively, modifying these features may reduce enforcement disparities and make public enforcement less necessary.

18 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: For example, the authors explores the different types of legal-proof paradoxes and the connections between them and explains the practical significance of the paradoxes, and why they raise fundamental issues for evidence law and for civil and criminal procedure.
Abstract: For several decades, a variety of paradoxes have fascinated and frustrated legal scholars and courts discussing evidence, procedure, and legal proof. These paradoxes concern issues such as statistical evidence, burdens and standards of proof, and rules for jury verdicts. As with other types of paradoxes, the paradoxes of legal proof raise fundamental issues and assumptions. In the legal context, the issues and assumptions are not merely of theoretical interest; they also have significant practical implications at trial and, indeed, throughout the processes of civil and criminal litigation. At the same time, there remains very little agreement about any of the paradoxes, and the issues they raise remain highly contested. This Article explores the different types of legal-proof paradoxes and the connections between them. In analyzing the structure of the paradoxes, the Article makes three contributions. First, it explains the practical significance of the paradoxes and why they raise fundamental issues for evidence law and for civil and criminal procedure. Second, it reveals the necessary connections between the different types of paradoxes and the ways in which one type of paradox has implications for the others. These unexplored connections help to explain why individual paradoxes have resisted consensus and continue to prompt discussion and disagreement—the paradoxes are too often treated as isolated problems to be “solved” without appreciating how the underlying issues relate to issues raised by the other paradoxes. Third, the analysis clarifies the primary source of confusion for each type of paradox: namely, the popular but mistaken assumption that standards of proof are probabilistic thresholds. Abandoning this spurious assumption provides a number of salutary theoretical and practical consequences, including greater clarity of the legal issues underlying the paradoxes; a better explanation of legal doctrine; and an improved understanding of the manifold litigation issues that depend on the legal-proof process.

18 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article addresses the connections between human rights law and tobacco control by demonstrating the potential of a human rights approach to tobacco control, while at the same time explaining how such approach can be used.
Abstract: T tobacco epidemic is one of the most dangerous and pervasive public health concerns the world faces today. Tobacco consumption is an epidemic that spreads not by infection, but by promotion and advertisement, and, more importantly, lack of effective regulation. In other words, it is an epidemic that can be controlled if governments implement appropriate tobacco control measures. Integrating a human rights approach in tobacco control has many advantages. Human rights law is one of the most powerful legal tools that can be used both domestically (in-country) and internationally. Moreover, human rights are also widely used in political discourse and they usually influence policy debates. As an area of discourse that is used globally, human rights law has a reach similar to the global dimension of the tobacco epidemic. Despite its utility, a human rights approach to advance tobacco control policies has not been widely used by the tobacco control movement. In fact, one could argue that the tobacco industry has been more proactive in using human rights law to attack tobacco control policies.1 This article addresses the connections between human rights law and tobacco control. Providing concrete examples from Latin America, we demonstrate the potential of a human rights approach to tobacco control, while at the same time we aim to explain how such approach can be used. This paper is divided into three sections. The first section provides background on human rights law and Human rights as a tool for tobacco control in Latin America

18 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The SEC is often praised or criticized for the law it makes. But relatively little scholarly effort has gone into trying to understand how or why it acts as it does as mentioned in this paper. But the recent mutual fund corporate governance rulemaking is examined as a useful case study into how the Commission tries to balance costs and benefits in the face of considerable uncertainty.
Abstract: The SEC is often praised or criticized for the law it makes. But relatively little scholarly effort has gone into trying to understand how or why it acts as it does. Indeed, critics of the SEC tend to adopt one of two fairly inconsistent behavioral theories: either that the Commission is readily captured by external political interests or that it behaves with a great deal of internal slack so that its decisions reflect judgmental biases and heuristics. On the other hand, those more inclined to support SEC rulemaking have not adequately explained how or why the Commission would likely make good law in the face of either external pressure or internal heuristics. My paper is an effort to stimulate a richer institutional understanding of the work of the SEC by looking more closely at both the external and internal accounts, and considering some possibilities for synthesis. The recent mutual fund corporate governance rulemaking is examined as a useful case study into how the Commission tries to balance costs and benefits in the face of considerable uncertainty.

18 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A good intention prior is proposed, which entails a rebuttable presumption that if an action has both good and bad effects, the actor intends the good effects and not the bad effects.
Abstract: The presumption of innocence is not only a bedrock principle of American law, but also a fundamental human right. The psychological underpinnings of this presumption, however, are not well understood. To make progress, one important task is to explain how adults and children infer the goals and intentional structure of complex actions, especially when a single action has more than one salient effect. Many theories of moral judgment have either ignored this intention inference problem or have simply assumed a particular solution without empirical support. We propose that this problem may be solved by appealing to domain-specific prior knowledge that is either built-up over the probability of prior intentions or built-in as part of core cognition. We further propose a specific solution to this problem in the moral domain: a good intention prior, which entails a rebuttable presumption that if an action has both good and bad effects, the actor intends the good effects and not the bad effects. Finally, in a series of novel experiments we provide the first empirical support - from both adults and preschool children - for the existence of this good intention prior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

18 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118