Missouri voters gave the American labor movement a very welcome bit of good news earlier this month when by a 2-1 margin they refused to become the 28th state in the nation to adopt right-to-work legislation in the private sector. Coming on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which held… Continue reading Left-to-Work for Less
More than a few commentators have noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s effort in Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, to put to rest any lingering doubt about the validity of one of the nation’s most notorious judicial precedents, Korematsu v. United States. In that World War II-era case, the Court upheld the government-mandated internment… Continue reading Putting Korematsu to Rest, Not a Moment Too Soon
By: Natasha Varyani, Adjunct Professor of Law The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., addressing the issue of when sales tax needs to be collected by online retailers engaged in eCommerce. In its 1992 decision in Quill v. North Dakota, the Court ruled that a retailer must have a “physical presence” in a state in order to be subject to that jurisdiction’s sales and use tax laws. The Court in Quill was revisiting its 1967 holding in National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue, in which it reviewed the authority of a state to impose its sales and tax laws on an out of state entity doing business in state. Both Bellas Hess and Quill dealt with retailers that conducted sales through mail order, and their only presence in state was the catalogue of products offered. The Court in Quill cited “tremendous social, economic, commercial and legal innovations” that had occurred in the twenty-five years that had passed since its holding in Bellas Hess to justify overruling that former holding.
United States v. Texas. The case involves the arguments put forward by twenty-six states, challenging the President’s November of 2014 Executive Action, which could have made around 5 million parents of citizens and lawful permanent residents (known as DAPA) eligible to apply to have their deportation deferred. It would also have slightly expanded the class of pre-existing eligibility for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), already in effect since 2012. The mechanism through which executive action would take place is the President’s request that his subordinates within the prosecutorial arms of DHS to exercise their prosecutorial discretion in determining where and how to use and focus limited deportation resources. Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act, tasking the agencies with enforcing immigration, but provides insufficient funds for the agencies to carry out their mandates. The Executive must then make decisions about how to prioritize those mandates. Neither DAPA nor the expanded DACA class confers anything other than the eligibility for certain persons to apply for time limited deferral from removal. With deferred action, under a different set of pre-existing regulations, passed under earlier Congresses and presidents, comes eligibility for work authorization.
Join the New England Law Review for our spring book symposium on February 11th at 4:00 p.m. in the Cherry Room at New England Law | Boston. It will showcase Professor Amy Gajda’s book “The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Paparazzi Threaten a Free Press.” Her book explores judicial oversight of journalism news judgment. She will discuss how the expansion of acceptable news content has shifted courts’ focus from the First Amendment to individual privacy—a shift that curtails mainstream journalists’ press freedoms. Both Professor Calvert as well as Professor West will respond. The symposium will feature Professor Amy Gajda, a Visiting Scholar from Tulane University Law School, as our keynote speaker, as well as feedback and commentary from a panel of prominent legal voices, including:
- Professor Clay Calvert, University of Florida
- Associate Professor Sonja R. West, University of Georgia Law