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.

Taking Text Too Seriously: Modern Textualism, Original Meaning, and the Case of Amar's Bill of Rights

Abstract: Championed on the Supreme Court by Justices Scalia and Thomas and championed in academia most prominently by Professor Akhil Amar, textualism has in the past twenty years emerged as a leading school of constitutional interpretation. Textualists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning and, in seeking that meaning, they closely parse the Constitution's words and grammar and the placement of clauses in the document. They have assumed that this close parsing recaptures original meaning, but, perhaps because it seems obviously correct, that assumption has neither been defended nor challenged. This article uses Professor Amar's book, The Bill of Rights, the widely acclaimed masterpiece of the textualist movement, as a case study to test the validity of that assumption. Amar's work has profoundly influenced subsequent scholarship and case law with its argument that the Bill of Rights primarily reflected republican rights of the people, rather than individual rights. This article shows that Amar's republican reading is incorrect and that his textualist interpretive approach repeatedly leads him astray. Amar incorrectly assumes that words have the same meaning throughout the document, assigns a significance to the placement of clauses that is belied by the drafting history, and incorrectly posits that the Bill of Rights reflects a unitary ideological vision. The textualist search for original public meaning cannot be squared with an interpretive approach that assumes that all word choices were made with a high degree of care, that the significance of location can be assessed simply by examining the four corners of the document, and that the Constitution must be understood holistically. Analysis of Professor Amar's The Bill of Rights indicates that, paradoxically, close reading is a poor guide to original meaning.

Legal regulation of human gene therapy.

Abstract: The adequacy of existing legal mechanisms to regulate clinical trials of human gene therapy is examined. Existing legal controls include the federal Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules and federal regulations for the protection of human subjects. Another significant mechanism is provided by judicial oversight, i.e., judicial decisions involving recombinant DNA research. Human gene therapy does raise new issues that still must be resolved. At least two weaknesses exist in the present regulatory system: first, Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) only has authority over federally funded research, not work done with private support, and second, RAC is not mandated to focus on difficult ethical issues, e.g., germ-line therapy, that arise from human genetic engineering technology.

Valuing the Right to Sue: An Empirical Examination of Nonprofit Agency Costs

Abstract: Do stakeholder suits against managers reduce agency costs? I examine this question using a large panel of private foundation tax returns, together with hand-collected data on state-law variations in the right of donors to sue wayward nonprofit managers. In both difference-in-differences and triple-difference estimations, I find on average that standing to sue substantially increases donations and reduces the share of firm expenses devoted to administrative costs among private foundations. These outcomes are robust to other estimating strategies, such as propensity-score matching and regression adjustment with inverse probability weights. Coefficients are smaller and less precise among large operating charities. I argue that my results weigh in favor of expanded donor standing to sue, at least for foundations. My findings also suggest that the agency costs of philanthropic organizations are substantial, which has implications for, among other policy debates, tax policies that encourage perpetual-lived philanthropy.

Private Disordering: Payment Card Fraud Liability Rules

Abstract: This Article argues that private ordering of fraud loss liability in payment card systems is likely to be socially inefficient because it does not reflect Coasean bargaining among payment card network participants. Instead, loss allocation rules are the result of the most powerful party in the system exercising its market power. Often loss liability is placed not on the least cost avoider of fraud, but on the most price inelastic party, even if that party has little or no ability to prevent or mitigate losses. Moreover, for virtually identical payment systems, there is international variation in both loss liability rules and security standards, suggesting that at least some variations are suboptimal.True Coasean bargaining is not possible in payment systems; the transaction costs are too high because of the sheer number of participants. Targeted coordination and competition, however, can achieve outcomes that if not Coasean, are at least optimized relative to the current system. Thus, the Article suggests a pair of complimentary regulatory responses. First, regulators should develop a system for coordinating payment card security measures with governance that adequately represents all parties involved in payment card networks. And second, regulators should pursue more vigorous antitrust enforcement of card networks’ restrictions on merchant pricing in order to expose the costs of participating in a payment system – which include fraud costs – to market discipline. The Article also presents an extended defense of the major existing regulatory intervention in payment card fraud loss allocation, the federal caps on consumer liability for unauthorized payment card transactions.