Washington College of Law
Home Archive Volume 65
Volume 65
COMMENT: Walker V. Texas Division, Sons Of Confederate Veterans, Inc. And License Plate Speech: A Dangerous Roadblock For The First Amendment

By Morgan E. Creamer65 Am. U. L. Rev. 1461 (2016)

On June 18, 2015, the Supreme Court severely limited the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  The Court ruled that the speech displayed on specialty license plates constituted government speech, and thus, the government may exercise viewpoint discrimination in denying any private entity’s proposed design or message.  This decision is often viewed as protecting civil rights, but it has actually limited a private individual’s right to free speech and given the right of unrestricted expression to the government.  This Comment therefore argues that the Court reached the wrong decision in Walker under the First Amendment and adversely implicated citizens’ First Amendment rights because it increased the States’ discretion in government speech.

Click here to view this Comment

Sales Suppression: The International Dimension

By Richard T. Ainsworth | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 1241 (2016)

Sales transaction taxes are highly susceptible to technology fraud, which is an inevitable result of today’s widespread reliance on technology to document taxed transactions. Technology can be (and is) manipulated to defeat the collection of these taxes. Both the U.S. retail sales tax (RST) and the European value added tax (VAT) are vulnerable to technology-based fraud. This Article concerns sales suppression—intentionally not recording sales—in the RST, and at the final stage of the VAT, the retail stage, when tax is collected from final consumers.

Click here to view this Article

2015 International Trade Decisions of the Federal Circuit

By Kevin J. Fandl65 Am. U. L. Rev. 997 (2016)

In many ways, the 2015 term of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to international trade felt like déjà vu. The Federal Circuit heard a number of significant cases this year that it addressed in one or more of the past several terms and either came back as an appeal on a related issue or for an en banc hearing. Despite these lengthening cases, very few appeals have found success, especially with regard to overturning antidumping orders.

Click here to view this Article

Juvenile Life Without Parole in Law and Practice: Chronicling the Rapid Change Underway

By John R. Mills, Anna M. Dorn, and Amelia Courtney Hritz | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 535 (2016) 

This Article provides a comprehensive examination of juvenile life without parole (“JLWOP”) both as a policy and in practice.  Beginning in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts the reach of JLWOP sentences, first prohibiting it for non-homicide offenses, then proscribing its mandatory application for any offense, and, in 2016, clarifying that it may only be imposed in the rare instance in which a juvenile’s homicide demonstrates his or her “irreparable corruption.”  The legislative responses to these cases have been to either abandon or restrict JLWOP’s application.  These legislative changes undo aspects of the rapid expansion of harsh juvenile sentencing policies enacted across the country starting in the early-1990s and represent a trend away from using JLWOP sentences.

COMMENT: The Halfway Point Between Barbary Coast and Shangri-La: Extraterritoriality and the Viability of the Economic Reality Method Post-Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Automobile Holdings SE

By Kaitlin A. Bruno │ 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 435 (2015)

In the increasingly globalized world, courts have struggled with how to best determine whether a security transaction is sufficiently domestic for § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to apply.  The leader in securities regulation jurisprudence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held in Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Automobile Holdings SE that, although satisfying the location-based transactional test the Supreme Court established in Morrison v. National Australia Bank is required, it is not, on its own, dispositive of § 10(b) liability.

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>

Page 3 of 4