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.

Resuscitating Dirks: How the Salman 'Gift Theory' of Tipper-Tippee Personal Benefit Would Improve Insider Trading Law

Abstract: The Supreme Court has the opportunity in the upcoming term in United States v. Salman to clarify insider trading jurisprudence and potentially endorse one of the three competing theories of the personal benefit standard that are supported by circuit precedent. An endorsement by the Supreme Court of the “gift theory” of the personal benefit standard in Salman would positively improve insider trading jurisprudence and enforcement. First, the “gift theory” of tipper-tippee insider trading liability is consistent with Newman, prior Supreme Court insider-trading precedent, and Congressional intent. The “gift theory” has been interpreted, and likely will continue to be interpreted by most jurists, in a manner that properly maintains the scienter requirement necessary for a criminal conviction. Second, the “gift theory” will likely not threaten the overall efficacy of insider trading enforcement. Instead, it will improve prosecutorial discretion by incentivizing prosecution of initial tippers and tippees rather than remote recipients of information. Third, this enhanced discretion will lead to enforcement that more effectively deters illegal disclosures but avoids chilling the free flow of information that is essential to efficient capital markets.

Child Care, Work, and the Federal Income Tax

Abstract: This article explores the federal income tax treatment of employment-related child care expenses It takes both a theoretical and historical approach, examining the various ways in which the Code has dealt with child care in relation to conventional tax notions and values at play in the community at largePart II outlines the history of the Code's various childcare provisions It is a critical analysis whose purpose is to decide whether any of the provisions, which have existed, can be explained by a particular tax theoryPart III asks whether employment-related childcare expenses can be characterized as "business" or "personal" expenses This question is asked in the hope that it can reveal what the proper tax treatment of employment-related childcare expenses should be Would the exclusion of such costs be a refinement of the taxpayer's income or just another loophole?The issue of the imputed income of home production is taken up in part IV Should a deduction for childcare and household services be allowed so as to provide tax neutrality between wage work and housework? Part V takes a second run through the history developed in part II This time, however, the emphasis is sociological I explore whether our reasons for preferring one child care provision over another, or over none at all, are more a product of underlying values regarding work and family than adherence to tax theoryFinally, in part VI, the author discusses what type of childcare provision he thinks the Code should have in light of what he has presented in the paper

Assessing the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton from a Post 9/11 Perspective

Abstract: The impeachment of President Clinton was more a circus than a serious effort to remove the President of the United States. The reason is simple: Few people -- in the Congress or the country -- wanted to remove him or believed the impeachment effort would actually result in his removal. Instead, it was a partisan political effort to embarrass Clinton and "send a message" of disapproval. Congress was attaching a "scarlet letter." But this was an indulgence that posed considerable danger that few in Congress considered. In particular, few tried to assess the potential impact this use of the process would have on the President's ability to govern and be Commander in Chief. This article will argue that such a frivolous use of the impeachment process is inappropriate and dangerous, especially in a post 9/11 world. The framers of the Constitution had it right; impeachment is a drastic remedy to be invoked only as last resort. This article will compare the Clinton impeachment with the two prior efforts to impeach a president: Andrew Johnson in the 1860's and Richard Nixon in the 1970's. In that comparison, it will note that, unlike the Clinton impeachment, those were serious efforts to remove a president from office, not merely attach a "scarlet letter." Finally, it will assess what factors allowed this misuse of the impeachment process and how we can avoid it in the future. It will suggest that the exuberance of the 1990s, the apparent absence of outside enemies at the time, and the security of seats in the House of Representatives (so-called "safe legislative seats") contributed to this nonchalant -- and dangerous -- attitude toward impeachment. September 11, 2001 changed some of those factors, but not all.

Maximizing #MeToo: Intersectionality & the Movement

Abstract: Although women of color experience high rates of harassment and assault, the #MeToo movement has largely left them on the margins in terms of (1) the online conversation, (2) the traditional social movement activity occurring offline, and (3) the consequential legal activity. This Article analyzes how race shapes experiences of harassment and how seemingly positive legal strides continue to fail women of color thirty years beyond Kimberle Crenshaw’s initial framing of intersectionality theory. I discuss the weaknesses of the reform efforts and argue for more tailored strategies that take into account the ineffectiveness of our current Title VII framework and, more specifically, the continuing failure of the law to properly deal with intersectionality. This analysis and the resulting proposal demonstrate how advocates can leverage #MeToo as an opportunity to reshape law, organizations, and culture in a way that better protects all women, and particularly women of color.