Search results

The purpose of this article is to provide non‐law librarians with two strategies for quickly helping millennials with online US Supreme Court research. The first strategy is to locate law‐librarian authored online research guides on the topic. The second strategy is to jump straight into one of the many free online databases that contain US Supreme Court opinions.

The article demonstrates the abundance of academic law‐librarian authored legal research guides available on the internet and explains how to evaluate them. Additionally, the article provides examples of many free online databases that allow searching, browsing and retrieval of full‐text US Supreme Court opinions.

Millennials looking for US Supreme Court opinions expect to be provided with digital research resources. Online legal research guides can help librarians find the latest online databases with full‐text US Supreme Court opinions. Widespread internet access to the entire run of US Supreme Court opinions is a very recent phenomenon. But today, several new web sites have made the entire run of US Supreme Court opinions available for free, vastly improving librarians' ability to meet millennials' expectations of immediate access to full‐text resources online.

This article provides librarians with two strategies for quickly helping millennials with online US Supreme Court research.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The purpose of this article is to provide librarians (and their patrons) with a quick method for finding United States Supreme Court cases in varied sources, including in databases and on internet web sites.

In order to provide librarians (and their patrons) with a quick method for finding Supreme Court cases, the article will explain case citations and case names. In addition, the article will provide varied sources for finding a case on a particular topic, for finding a major Supreme Court case – by case name or by topic – and for finding current Supreme Court cases.

In 1989, a guide that offered a quick method of finding Supreme Court cases appeared in Reference Services Review. However, since the article's inception, numerous sources, including databases and internet web sites, have come into existence. As such, an update of varied sources for quickly finding Supreme Court cases is needed.

The article is a useful resource for librarians (and their patrons) to quickly find Supreme Court cases.

The strategies and ideas presented in the article will provide librarians (and their patrons) with the means to quickly find Supreme Court cases.

The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings.

The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare.

The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion.

Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

Institutional arrangements, while constituting subject positions, also relegate others to inhabit unlivable abject positions. Such a perspective on identity begs the question on the possibilities of institutional reform given that abjects must seek recourse, if any, from the very institutions that marginalized them. One source for reform can be found in the functioning of institutional forums vested with performative powers, such as the Supreme Court. But how do these institutional forums legitimately bring about social transformation given that precedents bind them? To address this puzzle, we analyzed two Supreme Court rulings that showcase the performativity of institutions in materializing subject/abject positions, and the reforms that are possible. One is the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling providing marriage rights to same-sex couples. The other is the 2014 Indian Supreme Court ruling that legalized a third gender. An analysis of these two rulings and a comparison across them highlights the historical yet contingent nature of identity. The analysis also highlights “citational grafting” as a key mechanism underlying institutional reform, i.e., citations to earlier instances of social transformation serving as precedents for bringing about additional changes given new circumstances.

In a series of mid-20th century cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has modified and diversified the status of the enemy in U.S. law. We see a shift away from the statist egalitarian model toward a transnationalized model of enemies. U.S. Supreme Court decisions in three clusters of cases (German enemy aliens, the internment of the West Coast Japanese Americans, and Communist) from the 1940s and 1950s prefigure the radicalized post-9/11 “enemy combatant” status. The choice for such enemy conceptions is both a result of and a contribution to the changes in contemporary practices of violence.

Clarifying the proper approach to test the constitutionality of a criminal in personam forfeiture, the US Supreme Court has recently determined that only a ‘proportionality test’ can be used to determine whether such a forfeiture violates the prohibition against excessive fines found in the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Prior to this determination, lower courts were split as to whether to apply an instrumentality test, a proportionality test, or some combination of the two. The more encompassing instrumentality test, as used in civil in REM forfeiture, only enquires whether the seized property was ‘instrumental’ in the commission of the underlying offence. If property itself was used to facilitate a crime, however slight, the property was forfeit to the government. This test allowed for the forfeiture of huge amounts of currency or property such as an entire estate if the court determined that the property was used as the meeting place for the sale of an occasional marijuana cigarette. On the other hand, the proportionality test requires a judicial analysis of the ‘proportionality’ of the forfeiture to the egregiousness of the underlying criminal activity. In adopting a proportionality rule, the Supreme Court has receded from the bright‐line test for approving forfeiture and reinvested the judiciary with some latitude in examining the more egregious excesses of criminal forfeiture.

This chapter compares the status of intellectual freedom in libraries “then” (1970s) and “now” (2005). As starting points for comparisons, it uses two Advances in Librarianship chapters, by Edwin Castagna (Castagna, 1971) and David K. Berninghausen (Berninghausen, 1979), respectively. The US Supreme Court, although somewhat ducking the direct question of library censorship in a school library case in 1982, has consistently upheld intellectual freedom, even in the face of an onslaught of federal laws passed by Congress to restrict speech. The high-water mark came in 1997 when the American Library Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union and others to challenge the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which would have prohibited “indecent” speech on the Internet, an undefined term that could have swept away vast quantities of speech. In 2003, however, the Supreme Court ruled against libraries when it held that a narrower law, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is constitutional. This law requires libraries and schools that receive specified federal funds and discounts to use “technology protection measures” to block obscenity, child pornography, and material “harmful to minors.” This chapter looks at these and related cases, as well as the library profession's evolving ethical and political stance on intellectual freedom issues.