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.

Shareholders as Grown-Ups: Voting, Selling, and Limits on the Board's Power to 'Just Say No'

Abstract: With the return of a hot takeover market amidst a shareholder population in which institutional shareholders have a dominant role there has been renewed discussion of the role of shareholders in corporate decision-making and for takeovers in particular. This article takes the author's suggested structure as to what shareholders do (they vote, sell or sue, all in limited doses) and examines the contrasting lines of Delaware law as to permissible limits on director action to limit shareholder selling (see Unocal & Unitrin) and permissible limits on director actions to limit shareholder voting (see Blasius). The article examines reasons that might explain a difference in the two contexts and argues for a unified approach that would preserve space for shareholder decision-making.

American Rescue Plan Increases ACA Enrollment.

Abstract: Marketplace enrollment rises as the Biden administration swiftly implements the American Rescue Plan Act.

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues.

Abstract: Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitution- ally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spend- ing clause issues)?

The Proper Scope of the Police Power

Abstract: When it comes to identifying the powers of the federal government, we know where to look. Article I of the Constitution provides a list. When it comes to the power of states over their people, the issue has always been shrouded in doubt. For, though the Constitution provides a list of specific limitations on state powers along with an enumeration of certain rights, it appears to be silent on the question of the proper scope of what is called the police power of states. In this article, I will contend that the Constitution is not really silent on the proper scope of state powers; that the original meaning of what the Constitution says requires that state powers over their citizens have fairly easy to identify limits - though as with most constitutional provisions, applying these limits to particular cases requires judgment and is not a matter of strict deductive logic. This account will require me to briefly review the method of interpretation I advocate - original meaning originalism - and its limits. These limits require that interpretation of original meaning be implemented by means of constitutional constructions that enhance the legitimacy of the Constitution without violating the original meaning established by interpretation. I then examine the original meaning of the provision that provides the limit on state power: the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally I offer the construction of the scope of the police power of states that is consistent with that limitation: the police power of states includes the power to prohibit wrongful and to regulate rightful conduct of individuals.

Common Capital: A Thought Experiment in Cross-Border Resolution

Abstract: Cross-border bank resolution efforts focus on burden-sharing between bank owners, private creditors and the public. There is little talk of burden-sharing among governments, despite the rich history of governments trying to stick one another with the cost of financial conglomerate failures. There is an unspoken fear that acknowledging the need to allocate losses among governments would undermine post-crisis pledges of No More Bailouts. This symposium essay argues for making government stakes in private financial firms more transparent, and for using the contingent public share as a key to loss allocation among governments in cross-border banking crises.