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.

The Promise of Neuroscience for Law: "Overclaiming " in Jurisprudence, Morality, and Economics

Abstract: Claims for the relevance and importance of neuroscience for law are stronger than ever. Notwithstanding persuasive arguments that illustrate a wide degree of 'over­claiming' in the literature, new claims alleging the importance of neuroscience for law are common.1 This chapter discusses three examples of overclaiming how devel­opments in neuroscience can contribute to issues in legal theory. The first example fo­cuses on general jurisprudential theories about the nature of law and legal reasoning. We evaluate arguments concerning how neuroscientific evidence will contribute im­portant insights for jurisprudential debates. The second and third examples concern moral and economic decision making, respectively. We evaluate several arguments about how neuroscientific evidence will illuminate decision making in these domains and how these insights ought to be applied to issues in law and public policy.

Analyzing Vertical Mergers to Avoid False Negatives: Three Recent Case Studies

Abstract: This article analyzes three recent vertical mergers: a private antitrust case attacking the consummated merger of Jeld-Wen and Craftmaster Manufacturing Inc. (“CMI”) that was cleared by the DOJ in 2012 but subsequently litigated and won by the plaintiff, Steves & Sons in 2018; and two recent vertical merger matters investigated and cleared (with limited remedies) by 3-2 votes by the Federal Trade Commission in early 2019 -- Staples/Essendant and Fresenius/NxStage. There are some factual parallels among these three matters that make it interesting to analyze them together. First, the DOJ’s decision to clear Jeld-Wen/CMI merger appears to be a clear false negative, and the two dissenting Commissioner suggest that the recent FTC decisions similarly are false negatives. Second, the DOJ and possibly the FTC in Staples/Essendant may have overlooked the “Frankenstein Monster” scenario of input foreclosure. Third, both the DOJ and the FTC in Fresenius/NxStage also apparently relied on the absence of complaints in making their clearance decisions. The analysis of these mergers also suggests several policy implications involving the need to analyze the full range of anticompetitive concerns, the potential for merger retrospectives by independent (as opposed to staff) researchers, the height of the evidentiary burden on the agencies to show competitive harm in light of their limited budgets, and the need for greater transparency in Commission statements, as well as the potential errors in relying on a lack of complaints.

Breaking the Mexican Cartels: A Key Homeland Security Challenge for the Next Four Years

Abstract: Although accurate statistics are hard to come by, it is quite possible that 60,000 people have died in the last six-plus years as a result of armed conflict between the Mexican cartels and the Mexican government, amongst cartels fighting each other, and as a result of cartels targeting citizens. And this figure does not even include the nearly 40,000 Americans who die each year from using illegal drugs, much of which is trafficked through the U.S.-Mexican border. The death toll is only part of the story. The rest includes the terrorist tactics used by cartels to intimidate the Mexican people and government, an emerging point of view that the cartels resemble an insurgency, the threat — both feared and realized — of danger to Americans, and the understated policy approach currently employed by the U.S. government. This short article only scratches the surface by identifying the Mexican Situation as a pressing U.S. homeland security issue requiring a renewed strategic effort by the United States over the next four years. Involving a complex web of foreign policy, law enforcement, intelligence, military, border security, drug consumption and public policy considerations, breaking the Mexican cartels is no easy feat. But it is a necessary one to secure our southern border, eliminate the presence of dangerous cartels in our cities, reduce Americans’ contribution to the drug trade and resulting violence, and play our role in restoring the Mexican citizenry to a society free from daily terror.

Advocates, Federal Agencies, and the Education of Children with Disabilities

Abstract: The aim of this essay, prepared for a symposium on dispute resolution in special education held at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law in February 2014, is to highlight ways that advocates for children with disabilities can use federal agencies to improve the implementation and enforcement of federal laws protecting children with disabilities in schools — that is, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act as it relates to schools. One can spend a lot of time engaging with the contemporary public conversation about the law surrounding the education of children with disabilities without seeing much about the relevant federal agencies: the Office of Special Education Programs in the Department of Education; the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education; and the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. For example, a great deal of the scholarly and advocacy discussion about the enforcement regime for special education law focuses instead on the role of private parties in enforcing the law. This vision of the relevant enforcement universe can be misleading for advocates who are not currently taking advantage of what the federal agencies can provide. It can also be misleading for students planning to practice in this arena; the leading casebooks, like the trend in the scholarship and advocacy material, say very little about engagement with federal agencies. This essay therefore takes a different tack. Instead of focusing on private enforcement, Congress, the courts, or the limitations of federal agencies, I want to capitalize on what is already possible within the agencies and explain how and why to take these possibilities seriously. The goal of the essay is to provide a guide to agency structure and jurisdiction that will help advocates understand more deeply how to approach each office in any given context. More generally, this essay is part of a broader agenda to conceptualize education law as a regulatory field, in order to expand the conventional understanding of both the field of education law and the workings of the regulatory state more generally.

The Right to Be Forgotten

Abstract: The present general report is based on the work of fifteen national rapporteurs. It finds that jurisdictions embrace the right to be forgotten mostly where the right to privacy imposes limits on the right to free expression. Regardless of labels or formal legal recognition, the right to be forgotten takes various forms. In its most traditional form, this right has existed in some parts of Europe for over two centuries. It gives individuals the right to preclude the media from revealing true facts about their private life where no public interest prevails. In today’s world, the right to be forgotten has a more multifaceted meaning. With respect to personal data, this right can involve the right to access, control, and erase these data. The access and the control in turn will depend on various elements, including the roles of data processors, technological devices, competing interests, and the interest of the state. As the world is still assessing the roles of these elements, the right to be forgotten, at least in some of its current manifestations, will gain importance.