Touro law review最新文献

{"title":"The Future of Disability Rights Protections for Transgender People","authors":"K. Barry, J. Levi","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/6x42e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/6x42e","url":null,"abstract":"The Americans with Disabilities Act and its predecessor, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), protect people from discrimination based on disability, but not if that disability happens to be one of three archaic medical conditions associated with transgender people: “transvestism,” “transsexualism,” and “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments.” This Article tells the story of how this transgender exclusion came to be, why a growing number of federal courts say it does not apply to gender dysphoria, a new and distinct medical diagnosis, and the future of disability rights protections for transgender people.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"8 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74448197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fake News, Alternative Facts, and Disinformation: The Importance of Teaching Media Literacy to Law Students","authors":"M. Dell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3002720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3002720","url":null,"abstract":"Like legal education, media literacy education teaches critical thinking skills. Students with media literacy education are able to evaluate media messages and decide for themselves the truth of media. Media literacy education is critical at all levels, but it should be a required inclusion for every legal education program.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"198 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85716915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Benjamin Cardozo and the Death of the Common Law","authors":"John C. P. Goldberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3186775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3186775","url":null,"abstract":"Although a member of the Supreme Court at the time, Benjamin Cardozo did not participate in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. He was dying. It is a mere fortuity that Cardozo’s death coincided with the death of the general common law. Yet it has since proved to be something more—or so this symposium essay argues. It is in part because our highest court took itself out of the business of making law in contract, property, tort, and related areas that Cardozo’s beloved common law has fallen on hard times, and that even state-court judges have increasingly lost their feel for how to reason about it. Today, there is no member of a state judiciary who rivals Cardozo in stature. Mainly this is a testament to his extraordinary gifts. But it also reflects the waning of the common law in the United States, and a concomitant loss of the sense of what it means to be a great common-law judge.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"78 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74041560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fostering Student Authorship","authors":"A. Mashburn, S. Rush","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2998817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2998817","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, we suggest that law schools may provide every student with the opportunity to become involved in the process of producing a publishable paper by establishing on-line repositories for student publications. In the paragraphs that follow, we describe what such a program, which we call \"student authorship,\" might look like and further explore several primary benefits that such a program would confer upon students.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"83 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79335666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Paperless Chase","authors":"Steven J. Mulroy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2758853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2758853","url":null,"abstract":"In this symposium issue essay, Dean Mulroy argues that the paperless trend in law reviews is inevitable and mostly salutary, given advantages in cost, speed, access, and environmental impact. This will likely not mean the demise of student-run journals, nor should it. Although student-run journals have drawbacks and the rise of peer-reviewed journals is beneficial, the student-run journal has several significant advantages.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"42 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88869226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"People v. Boone","authors":"D. Somberg","doi":"10.1037/e500602018-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e500602018-001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"62 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86871506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scenes from the Copyright Office","authors":"Brian L. Frye","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2579349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2579349","url":null,"abstract":"In his iconic song “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant,” Billy Joel uses a series of vignettes to describe an encounter between two former classmates, meeting again after many years. The song begins as a ballad as they exchange pleasantries, segues into jazz as they reminisce about high school, shifts to rock as they gossip about the decline and fall of the former king and queen of the prom, then returns to a ballad as they part. The genius of the song is that the banality of the vignettes perfectly captures the subjectivity of their lived experience.This essay uses a series of vignettes drawn from Joel’s career to describe his encounters with copyright law. It begins by examining the ownership of the copyright in Joel’s songs. It continues by considering the authorship of Joel’s songs. And it concludes by evaluating certain infringement actions filed against Joel. While Joel’s encounters with copyright law were confusing and frustrating, they are also typical. The banality of his experiences captures the uncertainty and incoherence of copyright doctrine.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"46 1","pages":"83-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78830191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts’ “Prudential” Answer to Williamson County’s Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement","authors":"J. Breemer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2344499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2344499","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses recent developments in the law of takings arising from the courts’ application of the rule, articulated in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 185 (1985), that a property owner must sue for damages in state court to ripen a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The article reviews the confusion and inequity caused by this “state litigation” ripeness rule, and the Supreme Court’s and lower federal courts’ recent attempts to weaken the rule, so as to allow some takings claimants to litigate in federal court. Williamson County’s state litigation ripeness doctrine requires property owners to litigate for just compensation in state court before they can file a federal takings claim in federal court. But in practice, this rule interacts with other jurisdictional principles, such as federal claim and issue preclusion, in a manner that bars property owners from raising state-court ripened takings claims in federal court. As a result, plaintiffs must file their Fifth Amendment takings claims in state court. Yet, this opens the door for defendants to leverage removal principles and Williamson County to entirely deprive a takings plaintiff of any judicial forum for their case. If a defendant removes a state court takings case to federal court, it prevents the plaintiff from litigating in state court - the only available forum under Williamson County - and brings the removed claim to the federal forum in an unripe state; i.e., prior to full exhaustion of state court litigation. Federal courts often dismiss such removed takings cases, leaving the plaintiff without access to the courts for their Fifth Amendment takings claim. The article explains that these problems arise from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule and that the Supreme Court has abandoned this view. The Court has transformed the state litigation rule from a strict jurisdictional rule into a discretionary \"prudential\" ripeness concept. The article highlights how federal courts are using the new, \"prudential\" conception of Williamson County to decline to require state litigation for takings ripeness and defends this approach. It concludes that the courts' application of Williamson County as a discretionary, prudential ripeness doctrine provides them with a basis to spare takings plaintiffs from the worst injustices of the state litigation rule until the Supreme Court finally puts this rule where it belongs: in the waste pile of failed constitutional doctrines.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"32 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86156646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pledge, Promise, or Commit: New York's Tenuous Limitations on Judicial Campaign Speech","authors":"Noah Hertz-Bunzl","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2311805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2311805","url":null,"abstract":"A decade has passed since Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the landmark Supreme Court decision loosening speech restrictions on judicial candidates. White involved the announcements of legal and political views. New York limits speech concerning the extent to which judicial candidates may pledge, promise, or commit to legal or political positions. As these categories partially overlap in their applicability to a given campaign statement, New York judicial candidates must carefully navigate what they can and cannot say to avoid disciplinary censure. This Article sets out to determine the precise delineation of what can and cannot be said in New York and whether the legal speech that remains is a constitutionality valid limit. Ultimately, the restrictions are problematic because of the limited state interest in restricting judicial candidate speech and the false idea that speech that does not favor one set of legal interests or class of litigants over another can be sufficiently meaningful to the electorate to satisfy the relevant First Amendment interests.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"1 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83417162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commercial Exploitation or Protected Use? Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corporation and the Erosion of the Right of Publicity","authors":"Karin M. Mika, A. Reber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1649608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1649608","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the repercussions of Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corporation and argues that the decision in Stern opens the door to a broader interpretation of “newsworthiness” and “public interest” that will enable advertisers broader First Amendment protections when using “unauthorized” likenesses. This article posits that artful advertisers could very well use the theory of Stern as a basis for virtually ensuring that every “unauthorized likeness” will enjoy First Amendment protection and not be considered as violative of the right of publicity.","PeriodicalId":83351,"journal":{"name":"Touro law review","volume":"86 1","pages":"207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72522229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}