Displaying 571 - 580 of 1304

“Unfair or Unconscionable”: A New Approach to Time-Barred Debt Collection under the FDCPA

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/unfair-or-unconscionable-new-approach-time-barred-debt-collection-under-fdcpa

In search of an accessible epithet, newspapers across the country have christened debt that is barred by the statute of limitations “zombie debt.” This “funny term” for time-barred debt reflects its tendency to come back to life and attack when, like the first victims in a horror movie, consumers “seal their [ ] fate” by their own heedless approaches to debt collectors.

Liability for Data Scraping Prohibitions under the Refusal to Deal Doctrine: An Incremental Step toward More Robust Sherman Act Enforcement

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/liability-data-scraping-prohibitions-under-refusal-deal-doctrine-incremental-step

Internet giants like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon have attracted controversy for their growing influence on our social, political, and commercial activities. Some commentators worry that these companies’ ability to gather data and control who accesses it threatens the competitive health of the digital economy. This trend could harm consumers by stifling innovation in online products and by producing a digital economy with fewer choices and fewer competitors determined to win consumers’ business.

Who Do Corporations Serve?

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/uclr-online/briefly-podcast/who-do-corporations-serve

This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing who corporations serve. There has been a widespread belief for several decades that corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders.

Criminal Justice Reform and the Courts

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/criminal-justice-reform-and-courts

Prosecutors seem to be the primary target for criminal justice reformers today, and with good reason: they are key gatekeepers to whether criminal charges get brought or not, and the particular charges they bring often dictate a defendant’s sentence.

Volume 86.6 (October 2019) 1497–1737

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/volume-866-october-2019-1497-1737

Articles Clarity DoctrinesRichard M. Re

Standing for Statues, but Not for Statutes? An Argument for Purely Stigmatic Harm Standing under the Establishment Clause

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/standing-statues-not-statutes-argument-purely-stigmatic-harm-standing-under

In 2016, Mississippi passed the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, a law exempting Mississippians with “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples from the state’s antidiscrimination laws.

Tangled Arms: Modernizing and Unifying the Arm-of-the-State Doctrine

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/tangled-arms-modernizing-and-unifying-arm-state-doctrine

A police officer suspects someone of being an undocumented immigrant and detains them. Later, that individual sues the local police department in federal court for establishing a policy of hardline immigration enforcement that violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

Clarity Doctrines

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/clarity-doctrines

Legal practice is riddled with claims about when the law is or isn’t “clear.” If a statute is unclear or ambiguous, a court might defer to an agency, side in favor of lenity, or avoid interpretations that would render the statute unconstitutional.

In Defense of the Hare: Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine and Scientific Uncertainty in State-Court Opioid Litigation

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/defense-hare-primary-jurisdiction-doctrine-and-scientific-uncertainty-state-court

From 2000 to 2017, more than three hundred thousand people died of overdoses involving opioids in the United States.

Whether 8 USC § 1252(g) Precludes the Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction over Claims Brought by Wrongfully Removed Noncitizens

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/whether-8-usc-ss-1252g-precludes-exercise-federal-jurisdiction-over-claims-brought

A foreign national is set to testify under subpoena to a grand jury about detainee abuse by certain Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The district court has issued an order prohibiting the ICE agents from removing the foreign national from the United States. But the foreign national’s testimony is damaging, and the ICE agents would rather deport him than allow him to testify.