States can put the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the government edicts doctrine, explained in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., into practice by working with publishers to provide free and consistent access to legal information for all citizens, perhaps most importantly for the benefit of America’s incarcerated litigants, many of whom do not have meaningful access to the Internet for the purposes of performing legal research.
Current Issue
Issue 2, Volume 74
Public education in the U.S. is arguably more racially segregated now than it was in 1954,1 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education “that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” Although scholars may differ in the extent they believe that racial integration might be necessary for educational equality, most agree that educational segregation, whether imposed by law, socioeconomics, or happenstance, is not likely to reverse in any meaningful way in the near future.
NFIB v. Department of Labor, OSHA suggests that a revitalized, more coherent separation of powers doctrine may be emerging at the Supreme Court. This more coherent doctrinal approach appears to include both a more exacting application of the nondelegation doctrine, as it is presently understood, and a more assertive judicial role in reviewing agency interpretations of their own statutory authority. Based on a close reading of NFIB, we offer two insights regarding how the Court might treat a key aspect of separation of powers going forward, specifically the protection of the legislative power vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution.
Read the full article from Randolph May and Andrew Magloughlin [pdf]
This Article examines the self-defense exception to the attorney–client privilege and lawyers’ duty of confidentiality in ways intended to be useful to courts, lawyers, and scholars alike. It begins in Part II with a brief overview of the attorney–client privilege and lawyers’ duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6(a). Although the attorney–client privilege and lawyers’ duty of confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6(a) and state equivalents sometimes overlap, they are separate and distinct doctrines. Lawyers must understand their obligations under each.
Faced with these fundamental limits on rape law reform, this Article further provides recommendations for reforms that may help keep some bias from entering the legal system and concludes that the way to improve case processing is to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors operate free of inaccurate generalizations about rape.
Contact Us
The South Carolina Law Review
1525 Senate Street | Columbia, SC 29208
sclreic@mailbox.sc.edu