Observations About the Use of Legislative History

One of the workaday tools which federal judges are called upon to employ regularly in their daily labors is the body of materials called legislative history. Like a trusty old teapot, legislative history is readily available whenever the need for it arises. Indeed, in the current era legislative history truly abounds, with library specialists compiling vast tomes designed to aid lawyers and judges in divining the meaning of statutory law. Today, as courts toil under burgeoning case loads, we pause to examine whether (and to what extent) we may be, as it were, drinking too much tea

Second Mode Inclusion Claims in the Law Schools

During the past half-decade, law school student demands for changes in legal education to address issues of diversity and inclusion have both proliferated and grown insistent. Although the demands are somewhat varied, they have sometimes stretched far beyond the admission and hiring of more students and faculty from minority groups. Students have advocated for basic changes in the way that law schools operate in order to make them more inclusive of groups that have been historically marginalized within these institutions

Enhancing the Security Behind Municipal Obligations: Flushing and U.S. Trust Lead the Way

When bond counsel\u27 render their legal opinion approving the issuance and delivery of a municipal obligation, one of the opinions traditionally expressed is that the obligation is valid and legally binding according to its terms. Significant, here, are the words valid and binding. The validity of a municipal obligation can usually be determined by straightforward observation. Bond counsel must be satisfied that (1) the issuer has statutory and sometimes constitutional authority to borrow and incur indebtedness (2) the funds borrowed are to be used for a public purpose and (3) the issuer has complied with the preconditions to issuing debt obligations and incurring indebtedness. Two recent cases, Flushing National Bank v. Municipal Assistance Corp. and United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, suggest that the pledge of security to the holders of municipal obligations is something more than a mere promise to pay principal and interest assuming tax or enterprise revenues are presently available or could be raised. The holdings of these cases clearly point to a new judicial direction favoring strict construction of the terms binding the issuer to the obligation holders. The general result of these cases is to enhance substantially an obligation holder\u27s creditor interest in municipal obligations against competing claims for public funds