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.
Topics: Supreme court, Global health, Public health, Health policy, Human rights
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
01 Jan 2021TL;DR: The revocation of California's authority frustrates ambitious initiatives undertaken in California and in other states to reduce local air pollution and mitigate the effects of climate change from mobile sources as discussed by the authors, and instead of suppressing California's experimentation with zero emissions vehicles, this and future Administrations should embrace new ways to cooperate with California and a growing number of states that have begun thinking creatively about reforming the transportation sector.
Abstract: Air pollutants from motor vehicles constitute one of the leading sources of local and global air degradation with serious consequences for human health and the overall stability of Earth’s climate. Under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), for over fifty years, the state of California has served as a national “laboratory” for the testing of technological solutions and regulatory approaches to improve air quality. On September 19, 2019, the Trump Administration revoked California’s authority to set more stringent pollution emission standards. The revocation of California’s authority frustrates ambitious initiatives undertaken in California and in other states to reduce local air pollution and mitigate the effects of climate change from mobile sources. This Article argues that the reasons offered by the Administration to justify its rollback of California’s authority are not persuasive. They do not find support in the history and longstanding interpretation of the CAA, in the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation practice, or in the regulated industry, and, coupled with halting the rise in federal fuel economy standards, constitute unsound policy at a crucial moment for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. In addition, this Article advances the idea that instead of aiming to suppress California’s experimentation with zero emissions vehicles, this and future Administrations should embrace new ways to cooperate with California and a growing number of states that have begun thinking creatively about reforming the transportation sector. By building on a flexible and multilevel model of governance, grounded on forms of cooperative federalism that leverage state innovation and regulatory expertise, the federal government together with the states will ensure a more competitive future for America.
1 citations
•
TL;DR: In 2008, a massive number of male and female voters cast their ballots to nominate a woman, Senator Hillary Clinton, to be President of the United States as mentioned in this paper, and the Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, promptly named as his vicepresidential running mate the first woman ever nominated by the Republican Party to a Presidential ticket.
Abstract: We stand at an extraordinary moment: never before have so many powerful men wished to be women. For the first time in history, a massive number of male and female voters --18 million in fact -- cast their ballots to nominate a woman, Senator Hillary Clinton, to be President of the United States. Disappointed at Senator Clinton's failure to win the Democratic Party's nomination, many women threatened to bolt the party. Sensing opportunity, the Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, promptly named as his vice-presidential running mate the first woman ever nominated by the Republican Party to a Presidential ticket. And, not to be outdone, the other vice-presidential candidate, Senator Joe Biden, with characteristic candor, openly wondered whether his running mate might have been better off choosing a woman.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: One of six commentaries on “Obesity: Chasing an Elusive Epidemic,” by Daniel Callahan, from the January-February 2013 issue.
Abstract: One of six commentaries on “Obesity: Chasing an Elusive Epidemic,” by Daniel Callahan, from the January-February 2013 issue.
1 citations
••
TL;DR: For example, the Trump administration has disregarded the assumptions on which administrative law's soft power consensus depends, and its waivers allowing states to deny Medicaid to otherwise eligible low-income people unable to find employment exemplifies this disregard as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Administrative law is fundamentally a regime of soft power. Congress, the President, administrative agencies, civil servants, and the courts all operate within a broad consensus for rational, good-faith decisionmaking. Congress grants agencies discretion, and courts and civil servants defer to agencies’ political leadership based largely on the expectation that the latter are seeking to honor statutes’ purposes. That expectation of prudential restraint also allays concerns about delegations of legislative power. When the executive systematically disregards that expectation and seeks single-mindedly to maximize achievement of its policy objectives, deference’s justification breaks down.
Across agencies, the Trump administration has disregarded the assumptions on which administrative law’s soft power consensus depends. Its waivers allowing states to deny Medicaid to otherwise eligible low-income people unable to find employment exemplifies this disregard. Exploiting a sweeping delegation of authority to test new ways to achieve Medicaid’s goal of providing health care coverage, this administration has instead sought to achieve very different goals, from legislation that Congress has rejected. The waiver applications themselves estimate substantial increases in the numbers of uninsured people.
Ignoring the administration’s disregard of the longstanding administrative law consensus could deter future Congresses from valuable delegations of discretion. Permanently abandoning the deferential soft-power model would seriously undermine future governance. Instead, courts and civil servants should treat this period as a hiatus in consensus for good-faith decisionmaking. Courts should suspend deference and other aspects of soft-power jurisprudence. And civil servants should comply with political officials’ lawful directions but should remain steadfastly truthful in their words and actions.
1 citations
••
[...]
1 citations
Authors
Showing all 585 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lawrence O. Gostin | 75 | 879 | 23066 |
Michael J. Saks | 38 | 155 | 5398 |
Chirag Shah | 34 | 341 | 5056 |
Sara J. Rosenbaum | 34 | 425 | 6907 |
Mark Dybul | 33 | 61 | 4171 |
Steven C. Salop | 33 | 120 | 11330 |
Joost Pauwelyn | 32 | 154 | 3429 |
Mark Tushnet | 31 | 267 | 4754 |
Gorik Ooms | 29 | 124 | 3013 |
Alicia Ely Yamin | 29 | 122 | 2703 |
Julie E. Cohen | 28 | 63 | 2666 |
James G. Hodge | 27 | 225 | 2874 |
John H. Jackson | 27 | 102 | 2919 |
Margaret M. Blair | 26 | 75 | 4711 |
William W. Bratton | 25 | 112 | 2037 |