Congressional Devolution of Immigration Policymaking: A Separation of Powers Critique

For roughly a decade, federal legislation has devolved to the states some of Congress\u27s authority to adopt immigration policies that discriminate against permanent resident aliens. Equal protection challenges to discriminatory state policies so authorized by Congress raise the knotty issue of the appropriate scope of judicial review. Courts remain divided. The source of the difficulty is that the equal protection congruence principle is not applicable to alienage discrimination. Unlike equal protection cases throughout most of constitutional law, the judiciary deploys different standards of judicial review in alienage discrimination cases depending on whether the discrimination arises under federal or state law. Applying a highly deferential standard of review, courts normally uphold congressionally enacted immigration policies discriminating against aliens. By contrast, courts normally invoke strict judicial scrutiny to find state alienage discrimination unlawful. Congressional devolution legislation authorizing states to adopt policies that discriminate against aliens spawn equal protection challenges that do not fit neatly into either category of judicial review: the controversies entail state alienage discrimination but the discrimination being challenged is congressionally authorized. Devolution presents the question whether Congress should be able to immunize the states from strict judicial scrutiny by authorizing the states to adopt discriminatory immigration policies that Congress could itself adopt. That question is the subject of this Article

The surface chemistry of diamond

Imperial Users onl

Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging features of idiopathic oculomotor neuropathy in 14 dogs: Canine Idiopathic Oculomotor Neuropathy

Ophthalmoplegia/ophthalmoparesis (internal, external, or both) has been reported in dogs secondary to neoplasia affecting the oculomotor nerve and is usually given a poor prognosis. The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe the clinical findings, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, management, outcome, and follow-up in a group of canine cases with idiopathic oculomotor neuropathy. Inclusion criteria included cases with ophthalmoplegia/ophthalmoparesis (internal, external or both) as sole neuroophthalmologic signs, complete ophthalmic and neurologic examination, head MRI, and a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Dogs with progressive neurological signs not related to oculomotor neuropathy were excluded. Fourteen cases met the inclusion criteria. All cases were unilaterally affected. Magnetic resonance imaging showed equivocal enlargement of the oculomotor nerve in three cases, mild enlargement in five, and marked enlargement in six. Contrast enhancement was present in 12 cases, being marked in six. When present, the contrast enhancement was focal in eight cases and diffuse in four. The median follow-up time was 25 months. External ophthalmoparesis improved in seven cases, five cases under no treatment and two under systemic corticosteroid therapy. The clinical signs in the other seven cases remained unchanged. Idiopathic oculomotor neuropathy should be included as a differential diagnosis in dogs presenting with unilateral ophthalmoplegia/ophthalmoparesis (internal, external, or both) with the absence of other neurologic and ophthalmic signs, and with the MRI findings restricted to the oculomotor nerve. Idiopathic oculomotor neuropathy has a good prognosis as the clinical signs do not deteriorate and they can improve without treatment

"Libel tourism" and conflict of laws

This article considers the problem of ‘libel tourism’ (forum shopping in transnational libel cases) from the point of view of English and EU law (both relevant in certain situations). If proceedings are brought in a forum having no real connection with the case, and if the lex fori is applied, free speech in other countries could be undermined. This is particularly a problem where the case is brought in England, because of the pro-claimant slant of English libel law. The article notes when English conflicts law is applicable and when EU conflicts law is applicable, and explains the English and EU law regarding choice of law, jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in order to assess whether there is a genuine problem. It concludes that there is, particularly with regard to the Internet. Possible solutions are suggested

Incentive Effects of Unemployment Insurance Savings Accounts: Evidence from Chile

This study examines the determinants of job-finding rates of unemployment benefit recipients under the Chilean program. This is a unique, innovative program that combines social insurance through a solidarity fund (SF) with self-insurance in the form of unemployment insurance savings accounts (UISAs) – so as to mitigate the moral hazard problem of traditional unemployment insurance programs. Our study is the first one to empirically investigate whether UISAs improve work incentives. We find that for beneficiaries using the SF, the pattern of job finding rates over the duration of unemployment is consistent with moral hazard effects, while for beneficiaries relying on UISAs, the pattern is free of such effects. We also find that for benefit recipient not entitled to use the SF, the amount of accumulation on the UISA does not affect the exit rate from unemployment, suggesting that such individuals internalize the costs of unemployment benefits. Our results provide strong support to the idea that UISAs can improve work incentives.unemployment insurance, unemployment duration, savings accounts

Basic principles of jurisdiction in private international law: the European Union, the United States and England

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found

Enforcing Federal Civil Rights Against Public Entities After Garrett

In this article, I focus on the Section 5 branch of the federalism revival, the branch that was at issue in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, and the one that is most likely to arise when litigating on behalf of or against an arm of state government. In order to position Garrett doctrinally, I first describe the conceptual framework that determines the validity of Congress\u27 effort to abrogate state judicial sovereignty. This is an abridged version since more complete histories have been reported widely, both recently in these pages, and in many other journals. I then turn to Garrett\u27s holding and the Court\u27s reasoning to demonstrate that Garrett raised the bar, making it more problematic than ever that Congress will be able to deploy Section 5 to abrogate state judicial immunity. I shall argue that the outcome in Garrett was dictated neither by precedent nor by the rational basis standard of judicial review accorded disability-based discrimination. After evaluating the Court\u27s decision, I evaluate some options for enforcing federal rights that have survived Garrett. I finish with a discussion of some likely repercussions we might expect from Garrett