A Road Less Traveled to a Federal ERA

Professor Jones examines efforts to ratify the federal Equal Rights Amendment which ended unsuccessfully in 1982. He argues that efforts to use the federal courts to fill in the gaps in protection of rights based on gender are likely to fall far short of what the Amendment would have provided, and that a renewed attempt at ratification would likely meet the same fate as the earlier one. He suggests a third alternative, U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as the most feasible means of achieving the goals of the ERA without contending with courts and state legislatures

Expatriation

Encyclopedia article on expatriatio

Administrative Procedure (Annual Survey of Virginia Law, 1985)

Both the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia have been active recently in administrative law. For the past three years, a broadly-based movement for bureaucratic reform has influenced the legislative and executive branches of state government. The instrument for formal expression of this reform has been the Governor\u27s Regulatory Reform Advisory Board. In 1985, the General Assembly and the Governor responded obligingly to a second round of suggestions from the Board for amendment of the commonwealth\u27s general administrative process act. These legislative changes involved the definition of regulation, i.e., the output of a statutorily controlled administrative rulemaking process, and the consolidation of exemptions to and exclusions from the general procedural scheme. Returning to an issue of interpretation first addressed in 1982, the supreme court twice considered the time bars, concocted from statute and court rule, which limit judicial review of agency action

Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Administrative Procedure

Since the last report on developments in Virginia\u27s law of administrative procedure,\u27 both her General Assembly and her courts have been busy making new law. This year\u27s General Assembly revamped the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ), and made adjustments to laws regulating the periods in which agencies must decide certain types of licensing cases and promulgate certain procedural regulations. Meanwhile, the courts of the Commonwealth were active in the field, addressing open questions concerning the following subjects: rulemaking, due process, evidence, timeliness, and judicial review

Administrative Procedure (Annual Survey of Virginia Law, 1986)

Since the last report, administrative law in Virginia has continued to develop on both the legislative and judicial fronts. This year\u27s General Assembly enacted amendments to the state\u27s administrative procedure statute which embody the third and final round of recommendations by the Governor\u27s Regulatory Reform Advisory Board. The major changes were the standardization of procedures for obtaining judicial review of state agency action and the embodiment in statute of a corps of independent hearing officers

Administrative Procedure (Annual Survey of Virginia Law, 1987)

After three years of working major changes to the Virginia Administrative Process Act (VAPA), the General Assembly paid scant attention to the Commonwealth\u27s fundamental law of administrative procedure in 1987. During its most recent session, the legislature produced only three amendments to VAPA, inserting a regulation severability provision, modifying VAPA\u27s impact on Voluntary Formulary changes, and narrowing the exemption enjoyed by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. In two other statutory changes affecting administrative procedure, the General Assembly expressly provided for agency subdelegation and specified the method for computing time for a rule of court. While severability has evolved into an issue of some import in federal administrative law, its 1987 expression by statutory amendment is unlikely to create a controversy in Virginia administrative law. Three of the other legislative changes should give neither bench nor bar much pause. The subdelegation provision, however, does present a potential problem because of its apparent incompatibility with recent changes to the law of administrative adjudication. The problem is unlikely to be serious given the demonstrated good sense of Virginia\u27s agency head

Unnecessary Immunity: Fetta v. Board of Medicine

Prof. Jones critiques the holding of the Supreme Court of Virginia in Fetta v. Va. Bd. of Medicine, 421 S.E.2d 410 (Va. 1992)

Administrative Law (Annual Survey of Virginia Law, 2012)

What follows is, first, a report of certain developments during the last two years in the administrative law of Virginia, in particular the law governing rulemaking by state agencies and judicial review of both rules and cases from state agencies and, second, a report of developments in the law relating to Virginia\u27s Freedom of Information Act

The Business of the Supreme Court Revisited

Nearly seventy years after its publication, Prof. Jones revisits Felix Frankfurter and James McCauley Landis\u27 seminal 1928 book