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.

Rising Seas and Common Law Baselines: A Comment on Regulatory Takings Discourse Concerning Climate Change

Abstract: In several recent cases considering claims that regulatory measures addressing rising sea levels violate the Takings Clause, courts have given significant normative weight to traditional common law rules, even when such rules have long been superseded by statutory provisions. This essay argues that giving analytic precedence to such common law baselines lacks justification and can pose serious obstacles to reasonable measures to adapt to climate change.

An Economic Analysis of the AT&T-T-Mobile USA Wireless Merger

Abstract: On March 20, 2011, wireless provider AT&T announced its intention to merge with T-Mobile USA, a competing wireless provider This article reviews the economic analysis of this proposed acquisition that we carried out for Sprint and explains why the merger would have been anticompetitive We analyze how the merger would have led to adverse unilateral, coordinated and exclusionary effects AT&T and T-Mobile contended that their proposed merger would not adversely affect competition in wireless services because T-Mobile USA was not an effective rival, because other wireless providers could easily replace any competition that was lost as a result of the merger, and because the efficiencies from the merger would be so substantial that they would dwarf any perceived anticompetitive effects Our analysis concludes that AT&T failed to provide convincing evidence of the lack of anticompetitive effects and failed to adequately document the claimed efficiencies in a manner consistent with the Horizontal Merger Guidelines

The Lost History of Governance and Equal Protection

Abstract: Constitutionalists believe that the Equal Protection Clause died during the early decades of the twentieth century We aim to correct the record on this claim and, in the process, demonstrate equality's long held aspirations to political theory Decades before Professor John Hart Ely and public choice, equal protection aspired to be a principle of governance as much as a principle of classification or discrimination This tradition was not limited as is modern equality law to race, sex, or even caste, but aimed to tie equality to the duties of representatives to govern for all, not simply for some This Article argues that early twentieth-century equal protection law strove in imperfect ways for a theory of abusive representation; it naively hoped that the generality of legislation could bind majorities to minorities To resurrect and articulate an analogous modern theory would require far more than law-office history; it would require fleshing out what the old theory of equality failed to do: to construct a convergence-forcing method that would tie the fate of legislative majorities to that of minorities In that spirit, we offer a proposal that emphasizes (a la the new governance literature) the power of "embedded constitutionalism," a proposal that combats abusive representation by forcing the active consideration and deliberation of constitutional values in more powerful institutions" in this case, legislatures

Unified family courts

Abstract: Much has been written about the potential success of unified family courts. Unified family court proponents share great optimism and enthusiasm for what they see as a solution to several of the problems facing court systems today. This enthusiasm should be applauded. As with any reform, however, unified family court advocates must stop to consider the possible drawbacks to the system that they propose; otherwise, they might end up with a system that is the same or worse than the one that they were attempting to fix. This article highlights several of the potential problems with unified family courts. It is not a condemnation of unified family courts per se; it is simply a suggestion that reformers proceed with their eyes open, taking time to consider the potential drawbacks of the unified family court system before using valuable resources for its implementation.