In its 2012 ruling in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, the Supreme Court signaled that major changes may be coming to the body of First Amendment law governing public-sector unions’ relationships with nonmember employees who work in the bargaining units that those unions represent. The Court’s actual holding in Knox was not the most portentous feature of the case but was significant in its own right: when a public-sector union wishes to levy a midyear dues increase or special assessment, “the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” When collecting regularly scheduled annual fees, unions have long been allowed to presume that a nonmember employee is willing to help pay for the union’s political activities unless the employee tells the union otherwise and thereby opts out of helping to cover that nonchargeable portion of the union’s costs. The Court’s insistence upon an opt-in arrangement for midyear dues increases and special assessments thus came as something of a surprise.
Current Print Issue
When may states impose coercive measures such as asset freezes, trade embargos, and investment restrictions to protect the human rights of foreign nationals abroad? Drawing inspiration from Hugo Grotius’s guardianship account of humanitarian intervention, this Article offers a new theory of states’ standing to enforce human rights abroad: under some circumstances, international law authorizes states […]
Conservative Collision Course?: The Tension Between Conservative Corporate Law Theory and Citizens United
One important aspect of Citizens United has been overlooked: the tension between the conservative majority’s view of for-profit corporations and the theory of for-profit corporations embraced by conservative thinkers. This Article explores the tension between these conservative schools of thought and shows that Citizens United may unwittingly strengthen the arguments of conservative corporate theory’s principal […]
Using Singapore as an extended case study, this Article examines the idea of authoritarian constitutionalism, which it identifies as a system of government that combines reasonably free and fair elections with a moderate degree of repressive control of expression and limits on personal freedom. After describing other versions of non-liberal constitutionalism, including “mere” rule-of-law constitutionalism, […]
Symposium on Reassessing the Restatement of Employment Law
The Cornell Law Review hosted a Symposium on Reassessing the Restatement of Employment Law on Friday, November 21, 2014, at Cornell Law School. The Symposium offered the first commentary on Restatement of Employment Law, a twelve-year project, which the American Law Institute approved in 2014. Click for Symposium Agenda
Symposium on Extraterritorialism
The Cornell Law Review will publish its annual Symposium issue for Volume 99 with a focus on extraterritorialism in September 2014. The flurry of recent Supreme Court decisions turning on a revived door-closing territorialism is attracting the attention of legal scholars in various substantive as well as methodological fields of federal law, and the lines […]
Cornell Law Review Submissions Box Is Now Closed
The Cornell Law Review is not currently accepting article, essay, or book review submissions. We will begin accepting submissions for Volume 101 in February. The Cornell Law Review Online is accepting submissions for volume 100.
Welcome to CornellLawReview.org
Welcome to CornellLawReview.org, the new online home of the Cornell Law Review. In the spirit of its mission as a student-run journal, the Law Review is launching this site to provide greater access to its top-notch legal scholarship and more publishing opportunities for legal academics. The website will host all of the content that the Law Review publishes in print […]