Preemption in the Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment

The federal preemption of state law has emerged as a prominent field of study for legal scholars and political scientists. This rise to prominence of a technical and often dull field of jurisprudence is due to a number of developments-increasingly frequent federal statutory preemptions; the states\u27 unprecedented aggressiveness in regulating business transactions, the expansion of corporate liability under state common law and the increased resort of corporate defendants to federal preemption defenses; and, not least, the Rehnquist Court\u27s discovery of federalism and states\u27 rights. Unfortunately, the preemption debate has been marred by misperceptions and a lack of reliable data. Extravagant attention has been lavished on a few landmark cases, which may not be a reliable guide to the preemption universe. Studies of judicial behavior in this area have relied on an inadequate empirical foundation. This Article presents an empirical overview and a preliminary analysis of the Rehnquist Court\u27s preemption decisions. Part II describes the case universe and the outcomes. Part III discusses the role of the Supreme Court-more precisely, the Court\u27s perception of its own role-in preemption litigation. Part IV suggests that outcomes in preemption cases may be most readily explained as judicial responses to certain signals or cues. Two signals in particular prove significant: the presence of a state as a party to a preemption dispute, and the position of the Solicitor General. State amicus briefs and the partisan affiliation of the Solicitor General (Democrat or Republican) may also affect preemption case outcomes; however, we cannot show either variable to be statistically significant Part V examines the justices\u27 votes in preemption cases and addresses the discontinuity between the Rehnquist Court\u27s federalism cases and its preemption decisions. The Court\u27s federalism decisions have, until very recently, worked a major doctrinal shift in federal-state relations, in favor of the states. That shift has been the work of a stable bloc of five conservative justices, who have carried the federalism banner against a bloc of four liberal justices. In preemption cases, in contrast, liberals often vote against preemption (and thus for the states ), whereas conservative justices often flip-flop in the opposite direction. We find substantial evidence to buttress the impression of preemption cases as a mirror image of pure federalism cases. Unlike federalism law, however, preemption law shows no clear decisional trend. Moreover, we find no firm voting blocs and no swing vote. The concluding Part VI re-examines the perceived discontinuity between the Rehnquist Court\u27s federalism and preemption decisions in light of the evidence and argues that a satisfactory explanation of that phenomenon is bound to be more complicated than a simple attitudinal model of judicial behavior would suggest

Preemption in the Rehnquist Court: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment

The federal preemption of state law has emerged as a prominent field of study for legal scholars and political scientists. This rise to prominence of a technical and often dull field of jurisprudence is due to a number of developments-increasingly frequent federal statutory preemptions; the states\u27 unprecedented aggressiveness in regulating business transactions, the expansion of corporate liability under state common law and the increased resort of corporate defendants to federal preemption defenses; and, not least, the Rehnquist Court\u27s discovery of federalism and states\u27 rights. Unfortunately, the preemption debate has been marred by misperceptions and a lack of reliable data. Extravagant attention has been lavished on a few landmark cases, which may not be a reliable guide to the preemption universe. Studies of judicial behavior in this area have relied on an inadequate empirical foundation. This Article presents an empirical overview and a preliminary analysis of the Rehnquist Court\u27s preemption decisions. Part II describes the case universe and the outcomes. Part III discusses the role of the Supreme Court-more precisely, the Court\u27s perception of its own role-in preemption litigation. Part IV suggests that outcomes in preemption cases may be most readily explained as judicial responses to certain signals or cues. Two signals in particular prove significant: the presence of a state as a party to a preemption dispute, and the position of the Solicitor General. State amicus briefs and the partisan affiliation of the Solicitor General (Democrat or Republican) may also affect preemption case outcomes; however, we cannot show either variable to be statistically significant Part V examines the justices\u27 votes in preemption cases and addresses the discontinuity between the Rehnquist Court\u27s federalism cases and its preemption decisions. The Court\u27s federalism decisions have, until very recently, worked a major doctrinal shift in federal-state relations, in favor of the states. That shift has been the work of a stable bloc of five conservative justices, who have carried the federalism banner against a bloc of four liberal justices. In preemption cases, in contrast, liberals often vote against preemption (and thus for the states ), whereas conservative justices often flip-flop in the opposite direction. We find substantial evidence to buttress the impression of preemption cases as a mirror image of pure federalism cases. Unlike federalism law, however, preemption law shows no clear decisional trend. Moreover, we find no firm voting blocs and no swing vote. The concluding Part VI re-examines the perceived discontinuity between the Rehnquist Court\u27s federalism and preemption decisions in light of the evidence and argues that a satisfactory explanation of that phenomenon is bound to be more complicated than a simple attitudinal model of judicial behavior would suggest

Live attenuated seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine in school-age children: A randomized controlled trial

postprin

Efficacy of live attenuated seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccine in school-age children: a randomized controlled trial

Poster Presentation: SPA5 - How to Evaluate Vaccine Effectiveness and Efficacy?: abstract no. A508PBACKGROUND: A novel pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus emerged in North America in early 2009 and rapidly spread worldwide. Monovalent pH1N1 vaccines were licensed later in 2009 based on preliminary studies demonstrating their immunogenicity and safety. In this study we report the efficacy of live attenuated monovalent pH1N1 vacc...postprin

Doing what others do: norms, science, and collective action on global warming

Does rhetoric highlighting social norms or mentioning science in a communication affect individuals’ beliefs about global warming and/or willingness to take action? We draw from framing theory and collective-interest models of action to motivate hypotheses that are tested in two large web-based survey-experiments using convenience samples. Our results show that attitudes about global warming, support for policies that would reduce carbon emissions, and behavioral intentions to take voluntary action are strongly affected by norm- and science-based interventions. This has implications for information campaigns targeting voluntary efforts to promote lifestyle changes that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Quantum-Classical Transition of the Escape Rate of a Uniaxial Spin System in an Arbitrarily Directed Field

The escape rate \Gamma of the large-spin model described by the Hamiltonian H = -DS_z^2 - H_zS_z - H_xS_x is investigated with the help of the mapping onto a particle moving in a double-well potential U(x). The transition-state method yields $\Gamma$ in the moderate-damping case as a Boltzmann average of the quantum transition probabilities. We have shown that the transition from the classical to quantum regimes with lowering temperature is of the first order (d\Gamma/dT discontinuous at the transition temperature T_0) for h_x below the phase boundary line h_x=h_{xc}(h_z), where h_{x,z}\equiv H_{x,z}/(2SD), and of the second order above this line. In the unbiased case (H_z=0) the result is h_{xc}(0)=1/4, i.e., one fourth of the metastability boundary h_{xm}=1, at which the barrier disappears. In the strongly biased limit \delta\equiv 1-h_z << 1, one has h_{xc} \cong (2/3)^{3/4}(\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2})\delta^{3/2}\cong 0.2345 \delta^{3/2}, which is about one half of the boundary value h_{xm} \cong (2\delta/3)^{3/2} \cong 0.5443 \delta^{3/2}.The latter case is relevant for experiments on small magnetic particles, where the barrier should be lowered to achieve measurable quantum escape rates.Comment: 17 PR pages, 16 figures; published versio

Optimal Design of Intervention Studies to Prevent Influenza in Healthy Cohorts

Background: Influenza cohort studies, in which participants are monitored for infection over an epidemic period, are invaluable in assessing the effectiveness of control measures such as vaccination, antiviral prophylaxis and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Influenza infections and illnesses can be identified through a number of approaches with different costs and logistical requirements. Methodology and Principal Findings: In the context of a randomized controlled trial of an NPI with a constrained budget, we used a simulation approach to examine which approaches to measuring outcomes could provide greater statistical power to identify an effective intervention against confirmed influenza. We found that for a short epidemic season, the optimal design was to collect respiratory specimens at biweekly intervals, as well as following report of acute respiratory illness (ARI), for virologic testing by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Collection of respiratory specimens only from individuals reporting ARI was also an efficient design particularly for studies in settings with longer periods of influenza activity. Collection of specimens only from individuals reporting a febrile ARI was less efficient. Collection and testing of sera before and after influenza activity appeared to be inferior to collection of respiratory specimens for RT-PCR confirmation of acute infections. The performance of RT-PCR was robust to uncertainty in the costs and diagnostic performance of RT-PCR and serological tests

The limits to libertarian paternalism: two new critiques, and seven best practice imperatives

publication-status: AcceptedCopyright © 2012 PionGill N, Gill M, 2012. The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published in Environment and Planning C, 2012, Vol. 30, Issue 5, pp. 924 - 940Behavioural economists argue that humans are predictably irrational in various ways, as a result of which there appears to be a role for public policy to improve their decision-making. We offer a sympathetic critique of this so-called ‘libertarian paternalist’ approach. As well as reviewing existing critiques, we present two new arguments. First, we question the use of libertarian paternalism in situations where the social good is invoked to justify policies that are not beneficial to the individuals directly affected. Second, we highlight the potentially adverse consequences of poorly targeted libertarian paternalist techniques. The penultimate section then brings together the existing critiques and the new arguments to offer seven best practice imperatives for the reflective application of these powerful, but easily misused, tools of government. We conclude with some brief reflections on what freedom might mean in the context of libertarian paternalist governance

Effectiveness of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The clinical effectiveness of monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines has not been comprehensively summarised. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) for adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines. Methods: We searched healthcare databases and grey literature from 11 June 2009 to 12 November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed titles and abstracts to identify studies for full review. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the pooled effect size of vaccination compared to placebo or no vaccination for crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) to prevent laboratory confirmed influenza illness (LCI) and related hospitalization. VE was calculated as (1-pooled OR) ∗ 100. Narrative synthesis was undertaken where meta-analysis was not possible. Results: We identified 9229 studies of which 38 at moderate risk of bias met protocol eligibility criteria; 23 were suitable for meta-analysis. Pooled adjusted VE against LCI with adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines both reached statistical significance (adjuvanted: VE = 80%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 59–90%; unadjuvanted: VE = 66%; 95% CI 47–78%); in planned secondary analyses, VE in adults often failed to reach statistical significance and pooled point estimates were lower than observed in children. Overall pooled adjusted VE against hospitalization was 61% (95% CI 14–82%); in planned secondary analyses, adjusted VE attained statistical significance in adults aged 18–64 years and children for adjuvanted vaccines. Adjuvanted vaccines were significantly more effective in children compared to adults for both outcomes. Conclusions: Adjuvanted and unadjuvanted monovalent influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were both effective in preventing LCI. Overall, the vaccines were also effective against influenza-related hospitalization. For both outcomes adjuvanted vaccines were more effective in children than in adults