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.

Restructuring Medicaid as Block Grants — Unconstitutional Coercion?

Abstract: The proposed Patient CARE Act would restructure much of Medicaid as a block grant. But that might render it an unconstitutional coercion of the states, which would be compelled to conform to a new compact without the requisite advance notice of profound alterations.

State Action and the Constitution's Middle Band

Abstract: On conventional accounts, the state action doctrine is dichotomous. When the government acts, constitutional limits take hold and the government action is invalid if those limits are exceeded. When the government fails to act, the state action doctrine leaves decisions to individuals, who are permitted to violate what would otherwise be constitutional constraints. It turns out though that the modern state action doctrine creates three rather than two domains. There is indeed a private, inner band where there is thought to be insufficient government action to trigger constitutional constraints, but often there is also a public, outer band where there is too much state action for the Constitution to apply. The Constitution takes hold only in a middle band—the Goldilocks band—sandwiched between these two domains. For constitutional limitations to have force, the government must act just enough—but not too much. This Article’s first aim is to identify and describe this puzzling structure. It also examines a variety of doctrinal principles that produce and, perhaps, justify the state action doctrine’s three bands. The Article then argues that these seemingly disparate principles are all related to the special constitutional problems produced by the emergence of the middle band of government regulation. Finally, the Article concludes with some brief speculation about whether the modern tripartite structure can survive.

Judges! Stop Deferring to Class-Action Lawyers

Abstract: The idea for this article came from the author's representation of a national non-profit consumer rights organization in a federal appeal challenging a district court's approval of a class-action settlement. The organization's appellate briefs argued that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers' recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers' views, the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" (which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)). The district court also deferred to the lawyers' reputations as talented and honest lawyers. In approving class-action settlements, many other federal courts also have deferred to the settling lawyers' views on the fairness of the settlement and to those lawyers' reputations. In this article, the author maintains that proper class-action administration demands that in considering whether to approve a class-action settlement, a court should never defer to the views or reputations of the lawyers who are seeking the settlement's approval. Rather, the court should always exercise its independent judgment as to whether the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court's exercise of independent judgment is needed, the author maintains, to protect the interests of absent class members.

Using Leverage to Preserve Monopoly

Abstract: The Katz and Shapiro article is an ambitious and challenging paper It sets out an economic framework for analyzing the whole range of competition issues that arise in software markets It analyzes an array of key antitrust concerns, including mergers, standard setting, and a variety of vertical restraints It is an important contribution that policy makers should study

Substantive Tax Equity and Adjusting the Income Tax for Regional Cost of Living Differences

Abstract: Substantial variations in the cost of living among regions in the United States are a major impediment to achieving a fair and equitable income tax system. Geographic cost of living differences arise because of disparities in the consumption power of income in different regions. Although the current Federal income tax system sometimes reflects and adjusts for changes in the cost of living over time (by indexing for inflation), it does not account for geographic cost of living variations - the Internal Revenue Code treats each dollar of income the same no matter where it is earned. The underlying premise of this paper is that fairness is a goal of an income tax system. A system of taxation based upon fairness - i.e., ability to pay - must be apportioned based upon a taxpayer's power to consume. The presence of liquidity and ease of transferability does not mean that money a uniform value. It is inequitable to apply a uniform system of taxation in different regions across the United States when money does not have uniform consumption power. Taxpayers whose consumption power differs have different abilities to pay (regardless of whether these taxpayers have the same nominal dollars of income). Money income, therefore, must be adjusted for regional cost of living differences to ensure that it represents the taxpayer's power to consume. Therefore, in order to achieve horizontal equity, taxpayers with similar power to consume should be taxed the same, regardless of where they live.