Statutes – Cornell Law Review

Tag: Statutes

Justiciability, Federalism, and the Administrative State

Zachary D. Clopton

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain justiciable cases and controversies. So if a plaintiff bringing a federal claim lacks constitutional standing or her dispute is moot under Article III, then a federal court should dismiss. But this dismissal need not end the story. This Article suggests a…

Sep 2018

Current Print Issue

Animal Rights Before Legal Personhood

Ethan Prall

Fellow and Doctoral Student, University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science (JD, Harvard Law School; MTS, Duke University).

Growing scientific evidence shows that vast numbers of nonhuman animals are feeling, sentient beings, and ethicists have argued that this means they have moral value. However, law’s integration of individual animals as subjects with greater protection has been slow, despite the terrible threats that animals face today from human drivers like anthropogenic climate change and…

The Law of Creativity?

Andres Sawicki

Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law; Director, Frost Institute for Data Science & Computing.

What are the barriers to progress? For decades, IP scholars had an easy answer: suboptimal private investment in public goods. Recent work on the psychology and sociology of creativity has, however, undermined this easy answer. Simply put, the level of private investment does not dictate the “Progress” of “Science and useful Arts.” As a result,…

Synthetic Data and the Future of AI

Peter Lee

Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law and Director, Center for Innovation, Law, and Society, UC Davis School of Law.

The future of artificial intelligence (AI) is synthetic. Several of the most prominent technical and legal challenges of AI derive from the need to amass huge amounts of real-world data to train machine learning (ML) models. Collecting such real-world data can be highly difficult and can threaten privacy, introduce bias in automated decision making, and…

In Pursuit of Quality: Amplifying Panel Effects on the United States Courts of Appeals

John McCloud

J.D. Candidate, Cornell Law School, 2025. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 2020. Admissions & Membership Editor, Cornell Law Review Vol. 110.

The Shouldice Hospital, a medical center outside of Toronto, has become well known for bucking prevailing medical norms. Rather than performing the full panoply of medical services, like most hospitals, it focuses on a single type of surgery— hernia repair. The surgeons at Shouldice perform up to 800 hernia repairs per year, more than a…

How the FTC Ban On Noncompetes Will Impact Use of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

Amanda Shoemaker

J.D., Cornell Law School, 2024; B.S., Marketing and Media Arts, Bentley University, 2021.

This Note argues that some courts might increase their use of the inevitable disclosure doctrine if the FTC rule banning noncompetes survives legal challenge. The Note begins from the premise that the reason many courts reject the inevitable disclosure doctrine is that if the employer wanted to protect itself against the competition of former employees,…

Current Online Issue

The “Section 122 Revolution” in Delaware Corporate Law and What to Do About It

Zachary J. Gubler

Marie Selig Professor of Law, Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

Recently, the Delaware General Assembly amended Delaware’s corporate code to allow boards to delegate their decision-making powers to stockholders via contract. These amendments are significant because they effectively overturn a recent Delaware Chancery opinion. They’re also problematic, for two reasons: (1) because they are out of step with the best reading of Delaware corporate law—what…

Treating the Administrative as Law: Responding to the “Judicial Aggrandizement” Critique

Chad Squitieri

Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.

Modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence—including key decisions decided during the Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term—has been critiqued on the grounds that it constitutes “judicial aggrandizement,” i.e., that it impermissibly empowers federal courts to decide separation-of-powers questions better left to Congress and the President. This “judicial aggrandizement” critique goes too far to the extent it suggests that federal courts…