Yale Law Journal最新文献

{"title":"'Who's Afraid of the Federal Circuit'","authors":"A. Rai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1975138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1975138","url":null,"abstract":"In this brief Essay, I respond to Professor Jonathan Masur's Yale Law Journal article \"Patent Inflation.\" Professor Masur's argument rests on the assumption that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (\"PTO\") behavior is determined almost entirely by a desire to avoid reversal by the Federal Circuit. Although the PTO is certainly a weak agency over which the Federal Circuit has considerable power, Masur overestimates the extent to which high-level PTO administrators are concerned about Federal Circuit reversals and underestimates institutional influences that are likely to operate in a deflationary direction. The PTO is influenced not only by the Federal Circuit but also by executive branch actors, industry players, and workload concerns that can push in a deflationary direction.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"335"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2011-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89725997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?","authors":"James Greiner, C. Pattanayak","doi":"10.1257/rct.1677-1.0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1677-1.0","url":null,"abstract":"We report the results of the first of a series of randomized evaluations of legal assistance programs. This series of evaluations is designed to measure the effect of both an offer of and the actual use of representation, although it was not possible in the first study we report here to measure constructively all effects of actual use. The results of this first evaluation are unexpected, and we caution against both over-generalization and under-generalization. Specifically, the offers of representation came from a law school clinic, which provided high-quality and well-respected assistance in administrative “appeals” to state ALJs of initial rulings regarding eligibility for unemployment benefits (these “appeals” were actually de novo mini-trials). Our randomized evaluation found that the offers of representation from the clinic had no statistically significant effect on the probability that an unemployment claimant would prevail in the “appeal,” but that the offers did delay proceedings by (on average) about two weeks. Actual use of representation (from any source) also delayed the proceeding; we could come to no firm conclusions regarding the effect of actual use of representation (from any source) on the probability that claimants would prevail. Keeping in mind the high-quality and well-respected nature of the representation the law school clinic offered and provided, we explore three possible explanations for our results, each of which has implications for delivery of legal services. We conduct a review of previous quantitative research attempting to measure representation effects. We find that excepting the results of two randomized studies separated by more than thirty years, this literature provides virtually no credible quantitative information on the effect of an offer of or actual use of legal representation. We discuss disadvantages, advantages, and future prospects of randomized studies in the provision of legal assistance.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2011-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86264459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mandatory Versus Default Rules: How Can Customary International Law Be Improved?","authors":"C. Bradley, G. Gulati","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1779782","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1779782","url":null,"abstract":"Customary International Law (CIL) is plagued with uncertainties about its sources, its content, its manipulability, and its normative attractiveness. The rise of law-making through multilateral treaties also makes the proper role of CIL increasingly uncertain. This is an opportune time, therefore, to be thinking of ways to revive and improve CIL. In a prior article, we argued that the \"Mandatory View\" of CIL, pursuant to which nations are barred from ever withdrawing unilaterally from rules of CIL, is functionally problematic, at least when applied across the board to all of CIL. We also suggested that CIL might be improved by allowing for exit rights similar to those allowed for under treaty regimes, many of which allow nations to withdraw unilaterally, at least after giving advance notice of their intent to do so. In a series of papers in Yale Law Journal’s online edition, a number of scholars - Lea Brilmayer, William Dodge, David Luban, Carlos Vazquez, and Isaias Tesfalidet - take issue with our proposal of such a \"Default View\" of CIL. In this essay, we respond to their arguments, while also emphasizing the need for additional consideration of the ways in which CIL might be improved.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"38 1","pages":"421"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2011-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77530160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Aggregation and Law","authors":"A. Porat, E. Posner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1974565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1974565","url":null,"abstract":"If a plaintiff brings two claims, each with a 0.4 probability of being valid, the plaintiff will usually lose, even if the claims are based on independent events, and thus the probability of at least one of the claims being valid is 0.64. If a plaintiff brings two independent claims, and each of them is too weak to justify a remedy, the plaintiff will usually lose, even if the claims are jointly powerful enough to justify a remedy. Thus, as a general rule courts refuse to engage in what we call factual aggregation (the first case) and normative aggregation (the second case). (We also identify other forms of aggregation.) Yet we show numerous exceptions to this rule in private and public law. Notably, in public law the hybrid rights doctrine permits courts to aggregate two weak constitutional claims as long as one involves free exercise of religion. In private law, certain tort and contract doctrines also permit aggregation. We criticize the courts’ inconsistent approaches to aggregation, and propose conditions under which courts should (and should not) aggregate.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85114338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lightning in the Hand: Indians and Voting Rights","authors":"Pamela S. Karlan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1719702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1719702","url":null,"abstract":"This review essay discusses Laughlin McDonald’s book, American Indians and the Fight For Equal Voting Rights (2010), to explore questions of disenfranchisement, dilution, and constitutional design. McDonald examines the barriers to full political equality faced by Indians in communities in five Western states and describes litigation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 attacking these barriers. In many ways, the Indian voting rights cases resemble the cases brought, often a generation earlier, by black citizens in the South and Latino citizens in the Southwest. But as McDonald explains, Indians occupy a distinctive status within the American political order. Indians are citizens not only of the United States and the state where they reside but often also (and particularly in those regions where they are most likely to bring voting rights claims) of a separate sovereign as well – their tribe. This fact has inflected both the history of Indian disenfranchisement and the course of litigation under the Voting Rights Act. Part I describes the history of Indian disenfranchisement in light of their distinctive constitutional status. Indians’ exclusion from the political process reflected profound racism as pernicious and pervasive as the discrimination facing blacks in the South and Latinos in the Southwest. But it also involved complex constitutional and conceptual issues unique to Indians, who were excluded from citizenship, even after passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and who remained subject to distinct treatment even after citizenship was conferred. Part II then turns to the relatively recent vote dilution litigation that forms the heart of McDonald’s book. Indian voting rights cases have followed a clear path blazed by earlier cases involving blacks and Latinos. Nevertheless, themes related to Indians’ distinctive political status crop up within the litigation at various points. Finally, Part III looks beyond Indians’ claims under the Voting Rights Act to discuss issues related to internal tribal elections. Like other elections, these contests involve fundamental questions about enfranchisement and electoral design. Tribal answers to these questions sometimes depart dramatically from the rules governing federal, state, and local elections. I talk about two such departures, one related to voting by non-residents and the other related to nonequipopulous voting districts, to show how they that tie into ongoing debates extending far beyond Indian law.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"115 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2010-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80267178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Free Pass for Foreign Firms? An Assessment of SEC and Private Enforcement Against Foreign Issuers","authors":"Natalya Shnitser","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2846045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2846045","url":null,"abstract":"While proponents of the bonding hypothesis have posited that foreign firms crosslist in the United States to signal compliance with the strict U.S. corporate governance regime, these scholars have taken the enforcement of U.S. securities laws largely for granted. This Note presents an empirical examination of previously unexplored data on the enforcement of U.S. securities laws against foreign issuers. The results suggest that relative to domestic issuers, foreign issuers in the United States have benefited not only from a more lax set of rules, but also from a more forgiving public enforcement agency. At the same time, U.S. courts have limited private enforcement against foreign issuers, thus restricting an alternative to public enforcement and further widening the gap between the corporate governance regime for U.S. issuers and the one for foreign issuers.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"1638"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83817590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Uniform Ethical Regulation of Federal Prosecutors","authors":"Bradley T. Tennis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1593212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1593212","url":null,"abstract":"Federal prosecutors are subject to a bewildering array of ethical regulations ranging from state ethical codes to local rules adopted by federal courts to the internal policies of the Department of Justice. The inconsistent and overlapping application of these ethical rules has led to regulatory confusion that has inhibited the development of clear ethical expectations for federal prosecutors. A uniform system of ethical regulation, dividing regulatory authority amongst the Courts, the Department of Justice, and a to-be-created independent ethical review commission should be adopted to ensure the consistent enforcement of federal criminal law.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2010-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90744793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cost-Shifting in Electronic Discovery","authors":"Bradley T. Tennis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1593242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1593242","url":null,"abstract":"Rapid growth in the creation and retention of electronically stored information (ESI) has revealed fundamental inequities in the traditional allocation of discovery costs. While cost shifting has always been an option for a judge seeking to limit overly aggressive or intrusive discovery requests, no generally applicable framework for determining when cost shifting is appropriate has yet emerged. In 2006, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in an attempt to more explicitly account for the peculiarities of the discovery of ESI and to unify the various district court approaches. However, due to the close relationship of the cost-shifting test embedded in the 2006 amendments and the leading doctrines in case law, courts have continued to apply prior case law directly, occasionally alongside or within the amendment framework. While the leading doctrine in the case law bears a structural similarity to the test proposed in the notes accompanying the 2006 amendments, the two tests are distinct and have different implications for the substantive protections afforded to responding parties. The tendency of courts to apply the tests interchangeably has undermined the development of a unified nationwide approach to cost shifting in electronic discovery.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"196 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2010-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75058635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Federal Administration and Administrative Law in the Gilded Age","authors":"J. Mashaw","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1499322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1499322","url":null,"abstract":"This article has a simple message. The standard history of the development of American Administrative Law is at best partial and in many respects incorrect. The national government of the United States was an administrative government from the very beginning of the Republic. Moreover, that administrative government then, as now, was both constituted and constrained by law. In short, America had a federal administrative law long before that field of law was either recognized or named. In order to see administrative law in an era that mostly denies its existence, my inquiry is structured around three very general issues of governmental organization. Following the lead of Frank Goodnow, I see administrative officers as operating within three overlapping accountability regimes: political accountability to elected officials; hierarchical or managerial accountability to administrative superiors; and legal accountability to individuals and firms through judicial review. The distinctive characteristics of administration and administrative law in particular periods depend upon the relative importance of these regimes in structuring and checking administrative discretion and the particular mechanisms that political, administrative and legal actors deploy. Both the forms of and the balance among regimes shift over time. Indeed, it is the distinctive form and balance among these accountability regimes in the organization of 19th century national administration that has made administrative law invisible. But in every era there is a law of administration. To ignore that “administrative law” prior to the Interstate Commerce Act, in what I now tend to think of as “the lost 100 years of American administrative law,” is to ignore much of how American administrative institutions have been built, maintained and constrained. And, in my view, it is to ignore the incremental and pragmatic processes by which American public law usually develops. This article treats the Gilded Age incarnation of each of these three accountability regimes in turn. It first describes developments in the political control of administration in Post-Bellum America and the emergence of the “apolitical” civil service ideal, partially embodied in the Pendleton Act of 1883. As in all periods of American history, political control of administration in this period features both organizational changes in the political branches and the continuing struggle between presidents and congresses for dominance. The defining feature of this era might be said to be the migration of the provision of secure tenure in office from a congressional strategy to weaken presidential control over high-level administrators to an institutionalized protection for lower level officials that, in practical effect, constrained congressional power. The article next looks at developments in judicial review. Prior to 1860 judicial review of administrative action by federal courts had, to modern eyes, a peculiar structure. Review ","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"114 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79886558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Choice to Reproductive Justice: De-Constitutionalizing Abortion Rights","authors":"R. West","doi":"10.4324/9781315588124-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315588124-4","url":null,"abstract":"The essay argues that the right to abortion constitutionalized in Roe v. Wade is by some measure at odds with a capacious understanding of the demands of reproductive justice. No matter its rationale, the constitutional right to abortion is fundamentally a negative right that rhetorically keeps the state out of the domain of family life. As such, the decision privatizes not only the abortion decision, but also parenting, by rendering the decision to carry a pregnancy to term a choice. It thereby legitimates a minimalist state response to the problems of pregnant women who carry their pregnancies to term and for poor parents who might need greater public support. These marginalized groups need greater community and state assistance with the demands of parenting, and the equation of reproductive justice with a right to terminate a pregnancy is in tension with a political or legal agenda for meeting those needs. The essay then explores the possibility of creating a right to legal abortion through ordinary political means, rather than through constitutional adjudication, in such a way as not to carry these costs.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2009-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85126283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}