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 & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Human Nature, the Laws of Nature, and the Nature of Environmental Law

Abstract: This article explores the roles that human nature, the laws of nature, and the nature of the nation's lawmaking institutions have all played in the emergence and evolution of domestic environmental law and how the interrelated difficulties presented by each are reflected in the kinds of legal issues that surround environmental lawmaking. The article also discusses how these same difficulties impede environmental lawmaking by obscuring from lawmakers, judges, and the general population what is truly important about environmental law. Part I considers the ways in which the need for environmental law derives from the tendency of human nature to cause adverse environmental consequences and the ways in which the laws of nature make it more difficult to prevent those consequences absent the imposition of external legal rules. Part II describes how our nation's lawmaking institutions are similarly challenged by the laws of nature. This includes a discussion of how the kinds of laws necessary to bridge the gap between human nature and the laws of nature are systematically difficult for our lawmaking institutions to develop in the first instance and to maintain over time. Part III takes a closer look at one of the nation's most important legal institutions - the United States Supreme Court - and briefly discusses both its past shortcomings in environmental lawmaking and its potential in the future.

The Limits of Liability in the New Limited Liability Entities

Abstract: Piercing the corporate veil is the most litigated issue in corporate law. The rise of business forms such as the limited liability company (LLC) and limited liability partnership (LLP) raises a new question: how will the piercing concept translate to these new entities? Professor Thompson begins his look at that question by providing a quick overview of corporate limited liability rules. He then examines the insulating language of new LLC statutes nationwide -- first categorizing the statutes according to their potential for expansive insulation, then interpreting the extent that these statutes change common law rules on limited liability. Next, Professor Thompson undertakes a similar examination of LLP statutes. He concludes that liability protection under these new LLC and LLP statutes will not vary significantly from state to state and will not be markedly different from the protection provided by the corporate form. He also suggests that these new entities will focus discussion on currently underdeveloped parts of piercing law.

The United States' Engagement in Global Tobacco Control: Proposals for Comprehensive Funding and Strategies

Abstract: Tobacco use kills more people annually than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Unless action is taken, tobacco-related diseases will kill hundreds of millions more in coming decades, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Beyond its effects on morbidity and mortality, tobacco use has dramatic social and economic consequences, consuming healthcare budgets, robbing families of their primary wage earners, and hindering economic development. Tobacco consumption is shifting from industrialized to developing countries, spurred by rising incomes, trade liberalization, and intensive marketing. Although Congress empowered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco domestically, the United States has failed to lead globally. The United States is among a small minority of countries that has signed, but not ratified, the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A tiny percentage of U.S. funding for global health is dedicated to international tobacco control. U.S. trade policy has supported and enabled the industry to expand tobacco use overseas. In this Commentary, we argue for robust U.S. engagement in global tobacco control, first explaining why it is in the national interest of the United States and then suggesting a comprehensive strategy for supporting tobacco control in low- and middle-income countries.

The NLRA’s Legacy: Collective or Individual Dispute Resolution or Not?

Abstract: In this brief essay I review the legacy of the NLRA for dispute resolution - which is a mixed legacy, for both employment and labor rights, as well as for other areas of human disputing. The processes which grew around labor rights, including collective bargaining, negotiation, arbitration, mediation, med-arb and other "impasse" breaking techniques are good developments, demonstrating that there are other forms of dispute resolution, rather than winner-take-all litigation, brute struggles of power within "unassisted" negotiation, or worse, violent conflict. Labor processes, beginning with collective bargaining and grievance arbitration that became hybridized and more complex, such as grievance mediation and med-arb, were important innovations that spawned a whole new field in dispute resolution - dispute system design. But, in what many regard as a distortion of using alternative processes to reduce the contentiousness of litigation, or to save costs, or to serve some other (usually, employers’) interests, arbitration placed in mandatory, pre-dispute contracts of employment (and now all other kinds of contracts) and then interpreted to be the only form of dispute resolution available, is a controversial legacy which is hardly producing labor "peace." Indeed, the very goals of "collective" employment rights may be eroded as rulings from non-union individual employment matters (and commercial contracts more generally) are being "blended" with and eviscerating what were often intended to be collective rights. The legal processes that have developed around the separation of legal concepts and consciousness of "employment" (seen as individual rights) versus labor (seen as collective rights) is one of the major themes of this essay.In this examination of the NLRA’s legacy it is important to recognize how much processes used to deal with labor-management relations have given us, but also how different processes for different purposes might be essential for producing not only labor peace, but labor justice. As I have argued about processes in general - process pluralism - process choice and variety may be essential for delivering some form of justice in different contexts. Labor relations might benefit from learning that lesson - one size will not fit all, including limited (under current law and practice) labor negotiation and bargaining strategies, "mandatory" commitment to grievance or employment arbitration in different contexts, whether contractual or statutory, and in my view, insufficient attention to mediation, for both collective and union-management, as well as individual, issues and disputes.

No Reason to Believe: Radical Skepticism, Emergency Power, and Constitutional Constraint

Abstract: This essay reviews Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule's Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts, which I consider the most serious, sustained, and thoughtful effort to defend the Bush administration's aggressive tactics in the war on terror yet written. That the book is ultimately deeply flawed only underscores the failure of the Bush administration's approach. Where most historians view with regret the excesses of past security crises, from the criminalization of speech during World War I to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Posner and Vermeule advance the contrarian view that the system worked exactly as it should have, because in each instance, executive officials took aggressive action in response to perceived security threats, and courts and Congress deferred to or approved of the executive's initiatives. In Posner and Vermeule's view, there is no reason to believe that government officials will overreact during times of crisis, and no basis for judging what executive officials have done, because they have the expertise and access to information that the rest of us lack. I argue that Posner and Vermeule's argument for deference to the executive is misguided for three reasons. First, their assumption that there is a necessary and "straightforward tradeoff between liberty and security" is far too simplistic. Executives often sacrifice liberty without achieving an increase in security. Security may be advanced in a variety of ways without infringing on liberty. There is no reason to assume that sacrificing liberty is necessary to further security or that such sacrifices are warranted simply because the executive chooses to make them. Second, Posner and Vermeule's account of the political dynamics of emergency periods fails to take into account significant factors that predictably contribute to overreaching by the executive, infringement of human rights, selective targeting of disempowered minority groups, and institutionalization of authorities that last well beyond the emergency itself. Once these factors are properly considered, there are strong reasons not to defer to executive power, especially in emergencies. Third, the authors' argument that the executive is best situated to balance liberty and security in emergencies fails to consider the full range of qualities that one might want in an agency tasked to strike such a balance. Precisely because we rely so heavily on the executive to maintain our security, we should be skeptical of its ability to give sufficient weight to the liberty side of the balance. Judicial review plays an essential role in achieving an appropriate balance; deference to the executive undermines that role.