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.

The Measure of a Justice: Justice Scalia and the Faltering of the Property Rights Movement within the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: This article takes the measure of Justice Scalia's ability to produce significant opinions for the Court, by focusing on the Court's property rights cases during the past several decades. Much of the analysis relies on the Official Papers of Justice Harry Blackmun, which provide a virtual treasure trove of information revealing the Court's deliberative process when Blackmun was on the Court from 1971 to 1994. The article concludes that Justice Scalia may have appeared an effective champion of pro-property rights rhetoric to those outside the Court, but he has been much less effective within the Court in furthering that agenda. He not only repeatedly failed in his efforts to build a workable majority coalition on the Court, but he instead pushed away potential allies. The upshot was, in the first instance, precedent heavy on strong rhetoric yet light on staying power. In combination with other causes, the ultimate result was a splintering of those Justices, which included more than a simple majority, intuitively sympathetic to property rights claims and the reconstruction of a new majority more often led by Justice John Paul Stevens that returned the law to where it had been prior to Justice Scalia's joining the Court.

An Empirical Study on the Research & Critical Evaluation Skills of Law Students

Abstract: Although other researchers have delved into various aspects of legal education, the fundamental analysis of research behavior and the quality of research skills remains somewhat uncharted territory. There have been assessments of the research skills of incoming law students and the effectiveness of various research programs, but little to assess skills and preferences of existing law students. Building on surveys and studies from other disciplines, this article describes an effort to gather empirical data on law students’ legal research practices.Thirty eight ABA-accredited schools were included in this study, with a total of 3,599 student responses. The sample was diverse, representing law schools with organizational characteristics ranging in size, rank, public or private standing, age, and geography. Both part-time and full-time JD students were included, as were post-JD students.Part I of this article describes the purpose of the study. Part II describes preliminary considerations relating to the structure, design, and format of the survey, with details on key decisions made during the survey construction process and the useful information such decisions helped to yield. Part III provides a summary of the survey data and our findings. Part IV highlights potential blind spots in the survey and suggests where additional research might be useful, and finally, Part V provides insight into lessons learned through the survey process itself.

Immunity for Torture: Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran

Abstract: This article assesses the implications of the Canadian case of Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran in which sovereign immunity barred recovery against a foreign state for acts of torture. Part 2 describes the case and the courts ' rejection of arguments centred on the hierarchy of jus cogens norms, implied waiver and common law principles. Part 3 evaluates parallel develop- ments in the United States and demonstrates the commonalities and differences associated with efforts to overcome immunity in the two countries. Part 4 examines potential amend- ments to Canada's State Immunity Act with a view to balancing considerations of comity with a just and workable means of holding states accountable for grave human rights abuses.

Governing Board Accountability: Competition, Regulation and Accreditation

Abstract: This article examines the three primary ways in which the governing boards of American colleges and universities are held to account: (1) competition; (2) regulation, including state nonprofit corporation laws, tax laws, and licensing laws; and (3) accreditation. It begins by tracing how lay (meaning nonfaculty) governing boards became the dominant form of governance in American higher education. It argues that governing boards provide American institutions of higher education with an exceptional degree of autonomy from state control and that, together with the shared governance approach that gives faculties primary responsibility for academic matters, they have been a vital factor in producing the leading system of higher education in the world. The article concludes with recommendations for improving board oversight including avoiding the reputational harm caused by excessive compensation or conflicts of interest, recognizing that the public expects the nondistribution constraint to be extended to such academic goods as admissions and graduation requirements, and understanding the risk posed by increased government control of accrediting bodies.

Does the Constitution Protect Economic Liberty

Abstract: The author defends the proposition that the Court in Lochner v. New York was right to protect the liberty of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment. He does not defend its use of the Due Process Clause to reach its result. As he explains, the Court should have been applying the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Nor does he contend that the Court was correct in its conclusion that the maximum hours law under consideration was an unconstitutional restriction on the liberty of contract. Although the statute may well have been unconstitutional, the author does not take the time to evaluate that claim. Instead, this article focuses on whether the Constitution of the United States protects economic liberty. To clarify the issue, the author begins by defining “economic liberty” as the right to acquire, use, and possess private property and the right to enter into private contracts of one’s choosing. If the Constitution protects these rights, then the Constitution does protect economic liberty. The evidence that the Constitution protects rights of private property and contract is overwhelming.