1. Bluesky Feeds /
  2. lawliberg /
  3. LawProf SSRN Posts

Law professors posting links to SSRN. Hopefully mostly new law journal articles.

Feed on Bluesky

Feeds Stats

  • šŸ’™ Liked by 5 users
  • šŸ“… Updated about 1 month ago
  • āš™ļø Provider skyfeed.me

LawProf SSRN Posts Likes over time

Like count prediction
The feed LawProf SSRN Posts has not gained any likes in the last month.

Feed Preview for LawProf SSRN Posts

Anna E. Carpenter
@annacarpenter.bsky.social
about 3 hours ago
Congratulations to @uofoklahomalaw.bsky.social Prof. Michael Smith @msmith750.bsky.social for placing his article ā€œHolistic Constitutional Interpretationā€ in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy! Draft Here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape….
0
3
4
Emmett Macfarlane šŸ‡ØšŸ‡¦
@emmettmacfarlane.com
about 8 hours ago
Another new paper on s28 and "shields" for section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) coming out of the Dickson case, this by Kerri Froc and Paul McGregor. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape…. I wrote a piece last year in Constitutional Forum on this topic: journals.library.ualberta….

papers.ssrn.com

Where Shielding Clauses Yield: Women's Equal Rights following the Supreme Court's Dickson Decision

The paper relies on the reasons of the case ofĀ <i>Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation,</i> 2024 SCC 10, concerning section 25Ā  of the Canadian Char

0
3
7
Noah Chauvin
@noahchauvin.bsky.social
about 24 hours ago
I have a lot more on the Supremacy Clause issues with bills like the California one in an essay that's forthcoming from the Southern California Law Review Postscript. You can check that out here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape…. 10/13

papers.ssrn.com

Can States Force ICE to Take Off the Masks?

No. But that does not mean they are entirely powerless to combat the practice.

1
0
0
Noah Chauvin
@noahchauvin.bsky.social
about 24 hours ago
I have a lot more on the Supremacy Clause issues with bills like the California one in an essay that's forthcoming from the Southern California Law Review Postscript. You can check that out here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape…. 10/13

papers.ssrn.com

Can States Force ICE to Take Off the Masks?

No. But that does not mean they are entirely powerless to combat the practice.

1
0
0
David Froomkin
@dfroomkin.bsky.social
1 day ago
I argued in "The Nondelegation Doctrine and the Structure of the Executive" that the provision under which Trump is claiming his authority to charge fees for H-1B visas violates the nondelegation doctrine. papers.ssrn.com/abstract=….
Consider, for instance, the provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) at issue in Trump v. Hawaii, which grants the
President the authority to restrict the entry of aliens if the President finds
that their entry ā€œwould be detrimental to the interests of the United
States.ā€ The finding required by this provision lacks any concrete
substance; it confers pure, unbridled discretion upon the President. The
Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii did not analyze the nondelegation
problem (even as it noted that the provision ā€œexudes deference to the
President in every clauseā€), although the Fourth Circuit had observed
that ā€œ[t]he INA provisions invoked by the Proclamation are similar in
critical respects to the statute at issue in Panama Refining, which the Court invalidated on nondelegation grounds.ā€ Indeed, the delegation
disapproved in Panama Refining was more constrained, in that it imposed
at least a numerical upper bound on the President’s authority to select a
policy.201 Under INA section 1182, by contrast, the President could in
principle restrict the entry of aliens entirely. Nondelegation analysis ought
to approach a provision of this kind by carrying out the two steps described above. The Step Zero conclusion is that the provision delegates unilateral authority to the President. Therefore, a reviewing court should apply a higher level of nondelegation scrutiny in its textual analysis, akin to the 1935 cases. Here, there is a strong case that the provision lacks an intelligible principle, under Panama Refining and Schechter Poultry.
0
1
3
David Froomkin
@dfroomkin.bsky.social
1 day ago
I argued in "The Nondelegation Doctrine and the Structure of the Executive" that the provision under which Trump is claiming his authority to charge fees for H-1B visas violates the nondelegation doctrine. papers.ssrn.com/abstract=….
Consider, for instance, the provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) at issue in Trump v. Hawaii, which grants the
President the authority to restrict the entry of aliens if the President finds
that their entry ā€œwould be detrimental to the interests of the United
States.ā€ The finding required by this provision lacks any concrete
substance; it confers pure, unbridled discretion upon the President. The
Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii did not analyze the nondelegation
problem (even as it noted that the provision ā€œexudes deference to the
President in every clauseā€), although the Fourth Circuit had observed
that ā€œ[t]he INA provisions invoked by the Proclamation are similar in
critical respects to the statute at issue in Panama Refining, which the Court invalidated on nondelegation grounds.ā€ Indeed, the delegation
disapproved in Panama Refining was more constrained, in that it imposed
at least a numerical upper bound on the President’s authority to select a
policy.201 Under INA section 1182, by contrast, the President could in
principle restrict the entry of aliens entirely. Nondelegation analysis ought
to approach a provision of this kind by carrying out the two steps described above. The Step Zero conclusion is that the provision delegates unilateral authority to the President. Therefore, a reviewing court should apply a higher level of nondelegation scrutiny in its textual analysis, akin to the 1935 cases. Here, there is a strong case that the provision lacks an intelligible principle, under Panama Refining and Schechter Poultry.
0
1
3
Alex Erwin
@alexerwin.bsky.social
2 days ago
For more on why, see here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape….
0
0
1
Jesse Cross
@jessecross.bsky.social
2 days ago
Delighted that my new article, ā€œThe Amended Statute,ā€ now has the coveted ā€œhighly recommendedā€ and ā€œdownload while it’s hot!ā€ designations on Legal Theory Blog! Check it out here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape….

papers.ssrn.com

The Amended Statute

We live in a republic of amended statutes. In each Congress, our laws are amended tens of thousands of times. Individual statutes make amendments that number in

0
0
0