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.

In Defense of Bailouts

Abstract: Systemic risk - the possibility that an individual firm’s failure will result in broad damages to the economy as a whole - is the epitome of financial crisis. Bailouts of troubled firms have long been the standard response to systemic risk. Yet, bailouts suffer from problems of political legitimacy. Bankruptcy is often presented as more legitimate alternative to bailouts because its loss allocation system is preset and determined in the abstract. This Article argues that the choice between bailouts and bankruptcy is illusory. Bailouts and bankruptcy are not alternative choices, but an integrated system; any preset resolution system will be abandoned for a bailout if it would produce socially unacceptable loss allocations. Therefore, bailouts’ political legitimacy is critical. Accordingly, the Article proposes a framework for analyzing bailouts’ legitimacy. It identifies and explores two fundamental questions involved in all bailouts. First, should bailouts be done ad hoc through Congress or should bailout authority be institutionalized in an agency? And second, should creditors of bailed out firms be forced to accept less than full payment (or take a “haircut”) as part of the bailout? Ensuring accountability and fairness in resolving these issues is essential for bailouts’ political legitimacy and ultimate efficacy.

The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law

Abstract: The American regulatory system is unique in that it expressly relies upon a diffuse set of regulators, including private parties, rather than upon a centralized bureaucracy, for the effectuation of its substantive aims. In contrast with more traditional conceptions of private enforcement as an ad hoc supplement to public law, this Article argues that private regulation through litigation is an integral part of the structure of the modern regulatory state. Private litigation and the mechanisms that enable it are not merely add-ons to our regulatory regime, much less are they fundamentally at odds with it. Yet mechanisms of enforcement attendant to private suits are being restricted in numerous ways, and on numerous fronts, in the form of prohibitions on the use of the class action device, the recalibration of procedural mechanisms through private contract to discourage suit, the heightening of pleading standards, and the pre-emption of state law causes of action, just to name a few. Although these restrictions in some instances may provide necessary correctives to the system of private litigation in particular and the functioning of overall regulatory schemes more generally, in their broad-sweeping forms, they threaten to undermine systematically substantive regulatory law. Yet the larger regulatory consequences of these efforts receive inadequate attention.This Article thus offers a more systemic view of these mechanisms of private enforcement by providing elements of a conceptual framework for tailoring mechanisms of private litigation to the contours of particular regulatory regimes. This framework seeks to effectuate and extend the systemic interests in aligning private mechanisms with the regulatory goals of particular areas of substantive law, and at the same time seeks to balance the value of such mechanisms with concerns that they will, in some substantive regimes, generate undesired regulatory consequences. Indeed, this framework highlights the need, in some instances, for limitations on the use of private enforcement mechanisms, as well as the need, in other circumstances, for the creation of new mechanisms that are more carefully calibrated to address potential pathologies. This framework is therefore preferable to one-size-fits-all, abstract approaches to a number of seemingly disparate debates regarding restrictions on private enforcement mechanisms across our legal landscape. By offering a systemic view of various debates about these mechanisms, this framework offers the hope of eventual resolution of these seemingly intractable disputes. This framework also seeks to provide guidance to judges, agencies, and legislatures in the task of tailoring mechanisms of private enforcement to the achievement of public regulatory objectives.

The International Right to Health: What Does It Mean in Legal Practice and How Can It Affect Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage?

Abstract: —The international right to health is enshrined in national and international law. In a growing number of cases, individuals denied access to high-cost medicines and technologies under universal coverage systems have turned to the courts to challenge the denial of access as against their right to health. In some instances, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that they would have access to under universal coverage if not for government, health system, or service delivery shortfalls. In others, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that have not been included or that have been explicitly denied for coverage due to prioritization. In the former, judicialization of the right to health is critical to ensure patients access to the technologies or services to which they are entitled. In the latter, courts may grant patients access to medicines not covered as a result of explicit priority setting to allocate finite resources. By doing so, courts may ...