scholarly journals Which Statute Will Trump

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-131
Author(s):  
Allen Al-Haj
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Circuit Courts

A law can often be a double-edged sword—its mandate or protection of one right will sometimes come at the cost of another. Compounding this problem of unintended consequences is that laws do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, laws interact with other laws, and if they conflict, courts must determine which will prevail. Determining the validity of class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements will require reconciling the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms against the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The dispute over the validity of these agreements requires courts to determine which law and congressional policy should prevail. The National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts throughout the country have been unable to reach a uniform decision, which has prompted the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a triad of cases concerning this issue. With a decision from the nation’s highest Court expected during the 2017–18 term, this Comment analyzes the background and legal arguments behind these competing statutes to determine how the Court is likely to rule. This Comment concludes that, given the Court’s previous rulings in arbitration and class-action cases and the recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court is likely to rule in favor of validating class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.

scholarly journals A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Hector R. Lozada ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Court Case ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
Faculty Unions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Yeshiva University

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?

scholarly journals Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 981-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Holden ◽  
Michael Keane ◽  
Matthew Lilley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Peer Group ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mechanical Effect ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Circuit Courts

Using data on essentially every U.S. Supreme Court decision since 1946, we estimate a model of peer effects on the Court. We estimate the impact of justice ideology and justice votes on the votes of their peers. To identify the peer effects, we use two instruments that generate plausibly exogenous variation in the peer group itself, or in the votes of peers. The first instrument utilizes the fact that the composition of the Court varies from case to case due to recusals or absences for health reasons. The second utilizes the fact that many justices previously sat on Federal Circuit Courts, and justices are generally much less likely to overturn decisions in cases sourced from their former “home” court. We find large peer effects. For example, we can use our model to predict the impact of replacing Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett. Under the the assumption that Justice Barrett's ideological position aligns closely with Justice Scalia, for whom she clerked, we predict that her influence on the Court will increase the Conservative vote propensity of the other justices by 4.7 percentage points. That translates into 0.38 extra conservative votes per case on top of the impact of her own vote. In general, we find indirect effects are large relative to the direct mechanical effect of a justice's own vote.

scholarly journals IVF and the Anti-Abortion Movement

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 518-533
Author(s):  
Stephanie K. Boys ◽  
Evan M. Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Roe V Wade ◽  
The Cost

As the anti-abortion movement gains ground in the United States, it is important to explore the potential impact of overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) on the practice of IVF (in vitro fertilization). If the United States Supreme Court abandoned the legal right to early pregnancy terminations, it would open the door for states to enforce laws defining life to begin at conception. In all likelihood, legally establishing life to begin at conception may make IVF far less likely to be successful, significantly more expensive, more likely to result in high risk pregnancies with multiples, and more medically invasive. As the prevalence of IVF grows, this is a practice that should no longer be ignored in the political discourse on abortion. Instead, the unintended consequences of life at conception bills on the cost, availability, safety, and success rates of IVF can provide a strong argument in the toolbox of strategies for social workers lobbying against anti-abortion legislation.

scholarly journals Muddying the Waters: The Downstream Implications of Wal-Mart v. Dukes for Medical Monitoring Class Actions in Missouri

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel D. Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Medical Monitoring ◽  
Toxic Exposure ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Latent Disease ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

In 2011, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the United States Supreme Court heightened scrutiny of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement and imposed a strict injunctive standard for relief sought under FRCP Rule 23(b)(2). In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court followed several other states in acknowledging that claimants tortiously exposed to toxins may seek medical monitoring for latent disease in a class action. Although state courts are not bound by federal procedural rules, class actions increasingly invoke federal jurisdiction, and this Article attempts to analyze the likely implications of Dukes for toxic exposure class actions. Further, using Missouri as a benchmark, this Article provides suggestions for bolstering the chances of recovery for toxic exposure claimants facing removal to federal courts.

Worker Lawmaking, Sit-Down Strikes, and the Shaping of American Industrial Relations, 1935-1958

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Pope
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
National Labor Relations Act ◽  
Labor Practices

Between 1936 and 1939, American workers staged some 583 sit-down strikes of at least one day's duration. In the latter year, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion inNLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, resolving the official legal status of the tactic.Fansteelmade it clear not only that a state could punish sit-downers for violating trespass laws, but also that an employer could lawfully discharge them—even if that employer had itself provoked the sit-down by committing unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

scholarly journals A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hunter, Jr. ◽  
◽  
Hector R. Lozada ◽  
John H. Shannon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Labor Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Court Case ◽  
National Labor Relations Board ◽  
Faculty Unions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Yeshiva University

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document