Professor Timothy S. Jost, the Robert L. Willett Family Professor of Law, recently posted an article titled “Consensus and Conflict in Health System Reform — The Republican Budget Plan and the ACA” on the New England Journal of Medicine’s Health Policy & Reform website.
In the post, Professor Jost takes a look at the Republican budget proposal from Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and compares it to the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010. He finds eight commonalities between the two, suggesting that there is a growing consensus regarding the way in which the U.S. health care system should be structured. However, Prof. Jost then proceeds to identify five stark contrasts between the two plans. While there are certain agreements, Prof. Jost highlights the fundamental differences that must be addressed.
To read Professor Jost’s post, you may find it here.
Congratulations to Professor Jost.
Last Tuesday, April 26, Professor Robin Wilson, the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law, was a panelist for a New York City Bar forum, titled “Reconciling Rights: Balancing Lesbian Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Civil Rights with First Amendment Religious Protections.”
Professor Wilson discussed marriage rights, including her proposal for religious exemptions that she presented to the Maryland Legislature during testimony. Her co-panelist at the event was Maryland senator Jamie Raskin, who sponsored a Bill that embraced the idea of exemptions and adopted some of Professor Wilson’s proposals. Prof. Wilson also described the proposed exemptions, addressing why she believed the exemptions are needed, how she saw them operating, the impact they would have on gay and lesbian couples, and the impact they might have on other types of couples who might be subject to religious objections, like interracial couples or interfaith couples.
Congratulations to Professor Wilson.
Third year law student, Anthony Michael Kreis, recently had his article that reviewed the Fourth Circuit case, Educational Media Co. at Virginia Tech Inc. v. Swecker, accepted by the South Carolina Law Review, 62 S.C. L. Rev. 533 (2011), for its annual Fourth Circuit Survey.
Virginia’s Alcohol Beverage Control Board is charged with promulgating regulations governing the possession, transportation, distribution, and sale of alcohol in the Virginia. In keeping with its mandate, the Board banned alcohol advertisements in any “college student publication”– a publication distributed to or aimed at a community primarily under 21 years of age. Losing thousands of dollars in potential revenue, newspapers at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech brought suit against Virginia arguing the Board’s ban violated the First Amendment. The case was appealed to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after the newspapers’ successful challenge in district court. The Fourth Circuit reversed finding that the ban did not violate the First Amendment. Kreis reviews the doctrinal underpinnings of the majority and minority opinions. He then provides additional commentary on why the Fourth Circuit’s treatment of the claim possibly caused a split with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and why the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Congratulations to Anthony on this exceptional publication.
Professor Lyman P. Q. Johnson, the Robert O. Bentley Professor of Law, recently had his article, Techniques to Teach Substance and Skill in Contract Drafting: In-Office Meetings and Analytical Memos, published in Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law.
The short article is based on a talk Prof. Johnson gave at Emory Law School on Transactional Lawyering. One overall pedagogical aim of any transactional course is to link skills training with insistence on in-depth substantive learning about law and business. By doing this, skills training – although acknowledged to be practical – also can be recognized as intellectually demanding. Professor Johnson describes two techniques for making such a connection: in-office meetings and detailed “companion” analytical memos.
Congratulations to Professor Johnson.
Professor Lyman P. Q. Johnson, the Robert O. Bentley Professor of Law, recently had his article, Delaware’s Non-Waivable Duties, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 701 (2011) published in the Boston University Law Review.
The article disputes the seemingly settled view that recently enacted statutes in Delaware legally permit fiduciary duties to be waived in noncorporate business associations. Professor Johnson rests his argument on the Delaware Constitution, which vests the Delaware Court of Chancery with general equity jurisdiction and powers of a kind that cannot be curtailed by legislative action. Consequently, Prof. Johnson argues that neither the new and much-heralded waiver statutes, nor the private agreements they endorse, have divested Delaware courts of their traditional power and responsibility over fiduciary duties in limited liability companies (LLCs) or partnerships.
Congratulations to Professor Johnson on this publication.
Professor Susan D. Franck, Associate Professor of Law, recently published her article, Rationalizing Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, 88 Wash. U. L. Rev. 769 (2011), in the Washington University Law Review.
International investment and related disputes are on the rise, leading many parties to turn to arbitration. The costs of investment treaty arbitrations are arguably substantial. Prof. Franck’s article offers empirical research indicating that even partial costs could represent more than 10% of an average award. The data suggests a lack of certainty about total costs, which parties had ultimate liability for costs, and the justification for those cost decisions. Awards typically lacked citation to legal authority and provided minimal rationale, and the justifications for cost decisions exhibited broad variation. Tribunals typically decided costs only in the final award; and as the amount investors claimed increased, tribunal costs also increased. Such a combination of variability and convergence can disrupt the value of arbitration for investors and states. In light of the data, but recognizing the need for additional research to replicate and expand upon the initial findings, this Prof. Franck recommends states consider implementing measures that encourage arbitrators to consider specific factors when making cost decisions, obligate investors to particularize their claimed damages at an early stage, and facilitate the use of other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) strategies. Establishing such procedural safeguards can aid the legitimacy of a dispute resolution mechanism with critical implications for the international political economy.
Congratulations to Professor Franck.
Professor David Millon, the J.B. Stombock Professor of Law, recently published his article, Keeping Hope Alive, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 369 (2011), in the Washington & Lee Law Review.
The short article is a review and discussion of Micah Jost’s article, Independent Contractors, Employees, and Entrepreneurialism Under the National Labor Relations Act: A Worker-by-Worker Approach, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 311 (2011). Prof. Millon discusses the main battleground over unions, the legal distinction between “employees” and “independent contractors.” The right to unionize under the National Labor Relations ACT is limited only to employees, but no clear, bright-line definition of employee has emerged. Prof. Millon praises Jost’s article, stating that it “explains this confused area of law clearly and thoroughly.” He then proceeds to agree with Jost’s conclusions and suggestions.
Congratulations again to Micah Jost and to Professor Millon.