University of California, Irvine

University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly Commons
Not a member yet
    1242 research outputs found

    A Tough Roe to Hoe: How the Reversal of Roe v. Wade Threatens to Destabilize the LGBTQ+ Legal Landscape Today

    Get PDF
    For the first time in nearly thirty years, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court was asked, again, to overturn its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade finding a constitutional right to an abortion. And with three new Trump appointees and a 6-3 conservative majority, it was finally able to do just that. The Court’s decision in Dobbs has called into question not just the safety of abortion but of other constitutional rights grounded in similar tradition and legal doctrine. This Note considers the effects that the Dobbs decision could have on LGBTQ+ rights in particular and proceeds in four parts. Part I analyzes the cultural similarities underlying the issues of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. Part II surveys the current Court’s attitude toward abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as its attitude toward the doctrine of stare decisis. Part III analyzes the analogous legal doctrines utilized by the majorities in landmark abortion and LGBTQ+ rights cases. Part IV considers the effects that the overruling of Roe could have on existing LGBTQ+ precedent today and suggests that—to the extent those precedents are put at risk—modern practitioners going before the Court should seek to actively decouple these issues in the eyes of the Justices

    Elizabeth Loftus

    No full text
    Elizabeth Loftus at the Second Annual Celebration of Books, April 21, 2011.

    Christopher Leslie

    No full text
    Christopher Leslie at the Sixth Annual Celebration of Books, March 19, 2015.

    Joseph DiMento

    No full text
    Joseph DiMento at the Annual Celebration of Books, March 27, 2023.

    R. Anthony Reese

    No full text
    R. Anthony Reese at the Third Annual Celebration of Books, April 5, 2012.

    Mission Statement

    Get PDF

    Erwin Chemerinsky

    No full text
    Erwin Chemerinsky at the Sixth Annual Celebration of Books, March 19, 2015.

    Erwin Chemerinsky

    No full text
    Erwin Chemerinsky at the Third Annual Celebration of Books, April 5, 2012.

    “In The Public Interest”: University Technology Transfer and The Nine Points Document—An Empirical Assessment

    Get PDF
    In 2007, eleven major U.S. research universities and the Association of American Medical Colleges signed an accord titled In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology. It outlined a range of issues that universities should consider when licensing their technology to the private sector—from reservations of rights and limitations on exclusivity to limiting dealings with patent assertion entities to making medical technologies accessible at affordable prices. More than talking points, the document proposed specific contractual clauses intended to promote the educational and public welfare missions of universities. Today, more than a hundred academic institutions and associations around the world have signed the Nine Points document. Yet in the fifteen years since the document was created, there has been no systematic, empirical assessment of its effect on university licensing practices. This Article fills that gap with the first empirical study of the impact of the Nine Points document on university licensing practices. Through a review of 220 publicly available university technology licenses signed both before and after the adoption of the Nine Points document, this Article finds that while the document prompted the expansion of educational and non-profit research using patented university technology, it resulted in few changes relating to the promotion of public health or access to medical technologies. This mixed adoption of the recommendations made by the Nine Points document suggests that there is little consensus regarding the nature of the ‘public interest’ that the Nine Points document sought to promote. This Article recommends that a reorientation of university technology transfer policy may be in order—one that could be facilitated through greater engagement of academic faculty, senior administrators, students, alumni, and other institutional stakeholders in setting policy for university technology transfer

    Due Process and the Right to an Individualized Hearing

    Get PDF
    Due process requires the government to provide notice and a hearing before depriving individuals of protected rights. This right—the right to an individualized hearing—is powerful. It gives individuals the ability to know why the government is taking action that affects them; and it lets them oppose the government’s plans, often by presenting facts and arguments to a neutral decision-maker. As a result, the right to an individualized hearing can help shape the government’s substantive aims—and it even can prevent the government from acting at all. But, despite its importance, there is a longstanding exception to the right to an individualized hearing. Individualized procedures normally are not required when the government acts on more than a few people at the same time. Although the right to an individualized hearing and its exception are fundamental to due process doctrine, scholars disagree about this right’s origin, and courts have struggled to delineate its contours. This Article offers a new explanation for the scope of the right to an individualized hearing: it is a living relic of the once-pervasive “class legislation” doctrine. At one time, class legislation doctrine was a robust constitutional mechanism used both to prevent the elevation of one “class” of society at the expense of another and to minimize arbitrary distinctions between groups. Accordingly, class legislation doctrine helped courts enforce the key rule of law value of generality. Although class legislation doctrine has faded from its prominent place in constitutional law, shades of it survive in the right to an individualized hearing. Indeed, courts sorting out the contours of the right to an individualized hearing often invoke class legislation concepts that have been discarded from other areas of the law. Reconnecting the right to an individualized hearing with its class legislation origin sheds light on this mysterious but fundamental corner of due process doctrine. It also can help courts apply the right to an individualized hearing in ways that emphasize its crucial role in protecting the rule of law


    full texts


    metadata records
    Updated in last 30 days.
    University of California, Irvine: UCI Law Scholarly Commons is based in United States
    Access Repository Dashboard
    Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇