scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze three recent vertical mergers: a private antitrust case attacking the consummated merger of Jeld-Wen and Craftmaster Manufacturing Inc. 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 the Federal Trade Commission in early 2019 -- Staples/Essendant and Fresenius/NxStage.
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.

2 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the constitutionality of the common state practice of exempting interest on the state's own municipal bonds from taxation but imposing tax on municipal bonds issued in other states, and they predict that, if constitutional law remains as it stands, state laws exempting only in-state municipal bonds will be found to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Abstract: This Report considers the constitutionality of the common state practice of exempting interest on the state's own municipal bonds from taxation but imposing tax on municipal bonds issued in other states. In particular, we weigh the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision, United Haulers, on challenges to those statutes, including one suit, Davis v. Kentucky, in which a petition for certiorari was recently granted. In United Haulers the Court held that a municipal ordinance didn't violate the Dormant Commerce Clause because the ordinance operated as a preference for a government-owned facility. United Haulers might save from constitutional invalidity state tax laws favoring in-state municipal bonds, but we doubt it. Although United Haulers lifts the presumption of unconstitutionality from laws favoring state-run businesses in competition with private business, we argue that the Court should remain skeptical of discriminatory laws that shield state officials from the pressure of competition with activities undertaken by other states. We predict that, if constitutional law remains as it stands, state laws exempting only in-state municipal bonds will be found to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. If we are wrong and state tax laws favoring in-state municipal bonds are shielded by United Haulers, it will mark a significant extension of the nascent state-run business exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Oct 2008-Daedalus
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the selection and tenure rules that are part of the package of institutional designs protecting the independence of Article III federal judges, in light of recent controversies over the nomination process and proposals for "term limits" for Supreme Court justices.
Abstract: Dædalus Fall 2008 Judicial independence is necessary to assure the rule of law and protection of rights; accountability in some form is necessary for legitimate judicial review in a democracy.1 Rules about selection, tenure, and removal of judges are important parts of the “package” of provisions, practices, and institutional designs that influence the degree and shape of judicial independence and public accountability. This package includes legal, institutional, political, psychological, sociological, and cultural elements that affect judicial independence in complex ways. These elements are often interdependent; a change in one may create, or call for, changes in others. This essay focuses on the selection and tenure rules that are parts of the package of institutional designs protecting the independence of Article III federal judges, in light of recent controversies over the nomination process and proposals for “term limits” for Supreme Court justices. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the judges who serve in the federal district courts and circuit courts of appeals, are all Article III judges, appointed and holding of1⁄2ce pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.2 Nominated by the president and con1⁄2rmed by the Senate, Article III judges hold of1⁄2ce “during good Behaviour” and their salary cannot be reduced once in of1⁄2ce. On conventional understandings, they can be removed from of1⁄2ce only by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, by a two-thirds vote, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article III judges are not the only federally appointed judges, but function as part of a much larger system of judging and justice that includes non-Article III federal judges and the state-court judges. Vicki C. Jackson

1 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: “Medical futility,” the doctrine by which hospital ethics boards have assumed the right to authorize medical providers to unilaterally withdraw or decline to provide aggressive life sustaining medical care, has swelled in popularity in recent years and has affected the lives of countless terminal patients.
Abstract: “Medical futility,” the doctrine by which hospital ethics boards have assumed the right to authorize medical providers to unilaterally withdraw or decline to provide aggressive life sustaining medical care, has swelled in popularity in recent years and has affected the lives of countless terminal patients. The case law governing medical futility is inconsistent and appears to provide medical providers and patients alike little guidance in this extremely sensitive area of health law. Lost in the confusion created by the case and statutory law is due consideration of the normative case behind “medical futility.” “Futility,” by definition, is preceded by an important moral judgment. Assessing futility requires an opinion not just on the economic costs of treatment vis-a-vis the likelihood of physiological success, it also demands an assessment of the value of the life that hangs in the balance. Accordingly, through medical futility, medical providers have entered an area of discourse that is beyond their expertise. Science and medicine can say nothing about the value of human life generally or the lives of terminal patients specifically and the attempts by medical providers to do so are saturated in bias and moral judgment. Certainly, medical providers can and should discuss with their patients the likelihood of success and the potential pitfalls of any medical treatment. But once that discussion becomes an assertion that medical treatment is inappropriate, it transforms into a normative argument that a medical provider has no expertise to make.

1 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: There is no reason for the Supreme Court to have granted certiorari in Fisher v University of Texas at Austin Unless, of course, the Court plans to overrule Grutter v Bollinger as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: There is no reason for the Supreme Court to have granted certiorari in Fisher v University of Texas at Austin Unless, of course, the Court plans to overrule Grutter v Bollinger — the case on which the Texas affirmative action plan at issue in Fisher was based If that is its plan, the Court can invalidate the Texas program on some narrow ground that masks the magnitude of what it is doing Or it can explicitly overrule Grutter — a case that no longer commands majority support on a Supreme Court whose politics of affirmative action has now been refashioned by personnel changes The author predicts that the Court will invalidate the Texas plan in a narrow opinion that leaves open the theoretical possibility of some future affirmative action plans surviving constitutional scrutiny But ironically — as a proponent of racial justice — she hopes that any decision to invalidate the Texas plan expressly overrules Grutter and articulates the Court’s apparent preference for shutting the door on affirmative action completely, rather than disingenuously allowing the light of false hope to seep through a crack in the doorway If the Supreme Court closes the door, the political process can react directly to the Court’s racial ideology, rather than continuing to be distracted by the Court’s coquettish conception of racial equality With any luck, this will put the future of affirmative action back in the hands of the political branches — which, of course, is where it belonged to begin with

1 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118