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.

Can Federal Agencies Authorize Private Suits Under Section 1983?: A Theoretical Approach

Abstract: Since 1980, private suits brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 have been a prime vehicle for enforcing federal statutory norms against state and local government. Federal regulations, however, affect a vast cross-section of state conduct not directly controlled by federal statutes. It is therefore surprising to discover that, notwithstanding some occasional acknowledgments of the considerable importance of the issue, there is almost no scholarly discussion concerning to what extent federal norms embodied in regulations can be enforced through private Section 1983 litigation. The federal Courts of Appeals are badly divided over the question, and no coherent rationale for one approach or the other has emerged. This Article attempts to fill the existing theoretical gap by beginning with first principles of statutory interpretation. I argue that we should read the word laws in Section 1983 in light of two important canons of construction, one favoring executive interpretations of the law, and the other, favoring federalism. Contrary to common assumptions about Section 1983, permitting federal agencies to authorize private suit will actually further state autonomy. Agency-authorized suits create space for collaboration between federal and state regulators, empowering the States, and enhance accountability of otherwise politically remote state bureaucrats in ways that APA or due-process challenges cannot. Finally, by shifting the forum for disputes from federal agency rank-and-file to state or federal court, Section 1983 litigation affords States the benefit of the Court's recent developments in sovereign immunity jurisprudence. Thus, when we read laws, we should presume that Congress intended to capture these benefits, and to allow federal agencies to authorize suits under Section 1983.

The Supreme Court's influence on medicine and health: the Rehnquist Court, 1986-2005.

Abstract: CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST’S DEATH AND Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement concluded one of the most momentous periods in modern Supreme Court history. Justice O’Connor the first woman appointed to the highest court was often the “swing” vote in closely divided cases. Justice Rehnquist was the first chief justice to die in office since Fred M. Vinson died in 1953 and this is the first time in more than 30 years that there has been only 7 justices. The Rehnquist Court with its membership remaining intact from 1994 until 2005 was the most stable Court in history. This period was also one of political polarization largely due to the Court’s perceived influence on the 2000 presidential election in Bush v Gore. The Court decided socially divisive issues ranging from same-sex sodomy affirmative action and detention of enemy combatants to campaign financing and separation of church and state. This article examines the Rehnquist Court’s influence on medicine and health from 1986 to 2005 reflecting on its wider societal impact in 4 areas: reproductive rights medical privacy discrimination and federalism. (excerpt)

Train Wreck: The U.S. Violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention

Abstract: The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is one of the most important multilateral arms control instruments; it requires its 188 parties to refrain from producing, acquiring, retaining or using chemical weapons (CW) and to destroy their existing CW stockpiles by a fixed date. The United States and Russia declared the possession of the world’s largest CW inventories and have been working assiduously to incinerate, chemically neutralize or otherwise dispose of their respective caches. Unfortunately, neither country met the treaty’s April 29, 2012 final, non-extendable deadline. The United States managed to destroy 90% of its CW stocks on time, but under current projections, it will not complete the process until 2023 – more than 11 years late. This article examines the causes of that default and analyzes its legal and policy consequences. It concludes that the United States stands in material breach of the CWC; that none of the putative legal excuses or justifications is adequate to absolve the violation; and that other parties may have recourse to remedies under the CWC, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or under general international law. Moreover, it concludes that the striking U.S. diplomatic success in largely finessing this issue through the CWC’s treaty implementation bodies is misguided – although it has allowed the United States to escape censure or punishment in this instance, that accomplishment deserves the true long-run U.S. interest in insisting upon the importance of strict compliance with arms control treaties and in validating the rule of international law more generally.

Three Transnational Discourses of Labor Law in Domestic Reforms

Abstract: Current labor law debates, in the United States and elsewhere, reflect entrenched discursive positions that make potential reform seem impossible. This Article identifies and examines the three most influential positions, which it names the “social,” “the neoliberal,” and the “rights-based” approach. It shows that these discursive positions are truly transnational in character. In contrast with conventional wisdom, which accepts the incompatibility of these positions, this Article creates a conceptual framework that productively combines elements from each to enrich the debates over labor law reform and to foster institutional imagination. Applying this framework, the Article examines the collective bargaining systems of the United States and Mexico comparatively. It illustrates how the Mexican labor law regime could embrace the democratic aspirations of the rights-based position (dominant in the United States) without eliminating labor rules that facilitate collective bargaining. In contrast, the American labor law regime could embrace the aspirations of the social position (dominant in Mexico) to ease workers’ organization and facilitate collective bargaining, without undermining the system’s democratic character. This analysis draws attention to possibilities that have been foreclosed in each country and, by showing how they have been opened up elsewhere, suggests potential alternatives for institutional experimentation in domestic reform.

Review of 'Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them' by Joshua Greene

Abstract: Review of Joshua Greene's "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them".