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.

Expanding the Zone, Tilting the Field: Zone of Interests and Article Iii Standing Analysis after Bennett V. Spear

Abstract: This article explores the implications of Bennett v. Spear for public law standing. The unanimous Bennett Court, in its opinion by Justice Scalia, applies slightly reformulated but ultimately manipulable "zone of interests" criteria; the opinion also utilizes a new framework for standing analysis under Article III of "procedural rights" claims. The Bennett Court looks for case- specific allegations that an alleged procedural misstep "alters the legal regime" by having "coercive" and "virtually determinative effect." This new framework arguably resolves a second (but unbriefed to the Court) split in the circuits over standing for "procedural rights" plaintiffs. Bennett's new framework threatens to turn the overlapping "redressability" and "traceability" standing criteria into a substantial hurdle for plaintiffs claiming an agency procedural misstep, and undercuts the instructions provided by the Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Bennett gives no apparent weight to implicit legislative valuation of procedures. Professor Buzbee argues that Bennett is a problematic decision that can and should be narrowly construed to give appropriate heed to legislative judgments about the importance of procedures associated with a regulatory goal. The article closes by arguing that half of Bennett's new redressability-traceability test--the "alters the legal regime" language--offers a means to harmonize disparate standing treatment of plaintiffs alleging reverse discrimination and more typical administrative law or environmental law claims, and also could ensure that courts play a role in policing agency actions under diverse initiatives designed to enhance regulatory flexibility.

Rules for Radical Lawyers: Advancing the Abortion Rights of Inmates

Abstract: Recent scholarship has focused on intense backlash caused by impact litigation and has argued that these campaigns may not be appropriate for progressive social movements. Indeed, progressive attorneys have increasingly looked elsewhere in order to create social change. This article takes a different approach by looking to the works of radical social organizer Saul Alinsky. While Alinsky’s works are familiar to the Poverty Law and Law and Social Movement literature, his writings have not been used to shape an impact litigation campaign or to address concerns of backlash. The article first looks at the works of theorists Gerald Rosenberg and Michael Klarman, each of whom has come to represent a substantial body of scholarship skeptical of the ability of impact litigation to succeed. Having analyzed these scholarly bodies of works, the article examines then Alinsky’s writings and develops a response to these fears of backlash. From these works, a theoretical model of an Alinsky-inspired campaign is developed. Such a campaign seeks to find small legal strategies that will engender disproportionate backlash, go on the offensive in courts in order to provoke the opposition into a contradictory position, and work with activists and organizers to isolate and ridicule the opposition. Having developed this theoretical model, the article turns to the Reproductive Rights arena. First, it examines the history of Roe v. Wade. An analysis of alternative legal theories that were being proposed at the time of Roe is given, something which has received insufficient attention in the academic literature. These alternative theories are examined in order to discuss how the resulting backlash may have differed had the activists at the time followed Alinsky’s teachings. The article continues by proposing an actual litigation campaign to address the reproductive rights of inmates, following the theoretical model developed earlier. The advantages of these decisions are discussed and this article builds upon the author’s earlier published work on the subject, as well as current activism. Finally, the article addresses some potential difficulties with approaches such as the one described. Ultimately this is a work that describes how radicals can successfully develop impact litigation campaigns by anticipating backlash, as applied to the reproductive rights arena. The rights of inmates denied abortions are used to illustrate how these ideas can be deployed to address the needs of the subordinated as well as work to advance the agenda of reproductive rights throughout society at large.

The Effort to Reform the Federal Criminal Justice System

Abstract: The federal criminal justice reform community scored an important victory with the passage of the First Step Act, a federal sentencing and prison reform bill that President Trump signed into law in late 2018. First Step’s passage broke many years of congressional gridlock around criminal justice reform bills, marking Congress’s departure from forty years of policies advancing the carceral state. First Step’s passage didn’t happen by accident. The federal reform community is now better funded, more prolific, and more politically diverse than ever before, and it successfully provided the political cover necessary for congressional members to vote for reform. This Essay describes the difficult movement for federal criminal justice reform and how the reform community’s efforts led to passage of the First Step Act. It also explains what risks could stall future federal reforms, while providing a normative analysis of the criteria the federal justice reform community should use in deciding whether to support particular reforms.

Tipping Point Challenges in International Economic Disputes

Abstract: This Article reviews two critical “tipping point” moments in the evolution of international economic law: the controversial successful challenge to the appointment of an arbitrator in an investment arbitration case (CC/Devas v. India) in 2013 and the equally contentious non-reappointment of a member of the World Trade Organization Appellate Body in 2016. In each instance, an adjudicator was dismissed on the basis of his past decisionmaking. These two developments brought into sharper focus questions about the mandate of the adjudicator and the checks and balances in relation to the adjudicatory role. The Article refers to these moments as "tipping points" given the overwhelming negative response to each. Most commentators took the position that the moment ought not be repeated as it called into question foundational tenets of the trade or investment dispute resolution system. After reviewing the details of each moment and the responses, the Article surveys the availability of ethical or other doctrines to guide arbitrators when it comes to the impact of their past decisionmaking. It notes the variation in these doctrines both with respect to clarity and substance across international economic law. Finally, the Article calls for change in the interest of preserving the legitimacy of the international economic law adjudicatory systems.

The implications of Articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child for U.S. juvenile justice and U.S. ratification of the convention.

Abstract: The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) guarantees that children accused of crimes will have the right to fair court procedures and humane sentences. Current U.S. laws concerning the child's age when a court has jurisdiction, and others concerning sentencing practices and the place of confinement, contravene the provisions of the CRC. Some U.S. laws are consistent with the treaty but are nonetheless not enforced. Recent developments, including increasing understanding of brain development, U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of punishments for children, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment 10, will have substantial impacts on U.S. ratification. This article discusses Articles 37 and 40 of the CRC and their effect on U.S. practices if the treaty is ratified.