Tommy Tobin & Andrew Kline

Monday, January 3, 2022 - 10:45am

Congress is currently debating multiple proposals to regulate cannabis at the federal level. In their Essay, UCLA Law’s Tommy Tobin and leading cannabis lawyer Andrew Kline explore the impact of the Dormant Commerce Clause on the proposed national cannabis marketplace. They argue that Congress should consider designing federal oversight of the cannabis industry to establish a clearly articulated balance of powers between the federal and state governments, retaining portions of the current state regulatory systems and state social equity programs while promoting public health. Without clarity on Dormant Commerce Clause issues, they argue that the introduction of interstate commerce in cannabis might prompt years of handwringing for legislators, headaches for regulators, and unnecessary (and expensive) litigation for regulated businesses and applicants.

Saul Cornell

Tuesday, October 26, 2021 - 2:45pm

Professor Cornell’s Remark offers a detailed historical analysis of the rights of “infants” (whom we would now call “minors”) at the time of the Founding. This examination reveals that any attempt to extend the right to bear arms to minors is ahistorical and therefore does not fit into an originalist legal framework. Professor Cornell’s analysis is particularly helpful for making sense of the recent Fourth Circuit decision in Hirschfeld v. ATF.

Paul J. Larkin, Jr.

Friday, July 2, 2021 - 1:15pm

The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA) prohibits agency rules from going into “effect” before they are submitted to Congress so that it can review them and, if it chooses, pass legislation nullifying them before they can injure the public or the economy. Unfortunately, agencies have regularly disregarded the CRA, requiring affected members of the public to ask the courts to invalidate unsubmitted rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, held that the validity of an unsubmitted rule is not subject to judicial review. The court’s nonsensical ruling that courts must “see no evil” upends the purpose of the CRA by allowing agencies to coerce action by private parties that Congress has had no opportunity to consider and scotch before they become “law.” The Supreme Court needs to make clear that the CRA does not permit agency officials to ignore the CRA.

Delaram Takyar

Monday, June 14, 2021 - 12:00pm

The 2020 presidential election, which was preceded by months of efforts by Republican party members to disenfranchise voters during a global pandemic, highlighted the United States’ historic need for electoral reform. The tools for this reform might already exist in the Penalty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides a built-in remedy—reduced representation in Congress—in cases where a state abridges the voting rights of its citizens. This Remark provides an overview of the history of the long-neglected Penalty Clause, including a discussion of how important its drafters viewed its role, as well as practical proposals for ways it could be implemented today.   

Benjamin Silver & Michael Slomovics

Monday, June 14, 2021 - 12:00pm

Americans attempting to save for retirement face a maze of account options, each with their own unique tax consequences. Unfortunately, this maze also limits access to tax-advantaged retirement savings and takes money out of savers’ pockets. In this Remark, we recommend entirely eliminating traditional and Roth 401(k) accounts after a date to be specified by Congress. To compensate for dollars that workers formerly contributed to these accounts, we propose raising the current contribution limits to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) proportionately. We argue that this reform would solve numerous inefficiencies and inequities in the current 401(k) system, would effectively expand lower- and middle-class workers’ access to tax-advantaged retirement savings, and solve seven severe problems plaguing the 401(k). In addition, we explore the options for transitioning from the current regime to an all-IRA regime and address some preliminary objections to our proposal.

Kris Olson

Saturday, March 30, 2019 - 1:30pm

President Donald Trump’s sometimes turbulent relationship with his now-former Attorney General Jeff Sessions drew the attention of the country, but how unusual was it really? As the head of the Department of Justice, the AG is tasked with ensuring appropriate administration of justice, but, as a political appointee removable at will by the President, the AG is also intrinsically tied with the politics of the administration.  Throughout the last six administrations, different AGs have reacted in various ways to the tensions created by these two roles–each earning their own moniker: The Foxtrotter. The Wingman. The Co-Conspirator. The Company Man. The Stand-Up Lady. The Witness. The Wallflower. 

Carl Tobias

Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - 7:30pm

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court confirmation process exacerbated the striking divisiveness, rampant partisanship, and stunning paybacks that have systematically plagued the federal judicial selection process. The Senate basically ended any true debate when the Republican majority peremptorily detonated the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees. This measure limited filibusters regarding all judicial nominees, allowing a simple majority ballot to confirm a nominee. One century-long practice that does remain is the “blue slip.” Under Senate tradition, whenever the President submits a federal district or appeals court nominee, the Judiciary Committee Chair sends a blue slip of paper to each senator who represents the state in which the nominee will sit, and those senators can delay the nomination by refusing to return the slip. However, recent changes in the blue slip practice by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), powerful support for Grassley’s perspectives regarding slips from many Republican senators, and new threats by other GOP members to abrogate or change blue slips merit scrutiny. Elimination or alteration could jeopardize the Senate’s discharge of its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on presidential nominees and undermine the institution itself.