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
A fundamental academic assumption about the federal courts of appeals is that the three-judge panels that hear cases have been randomly configured. Scores of scholarly articles have noted this “fact,” and it has been relied on heavily by empirical researchers. Even though there are practical reasons to doubt that judges would always be randomly assigned to panels—such as courts might well […]
When a constitutional right conflicts with an evidentiary rule that would otherwise allow a piece of evidence to be admitted at trial, should the constitutional right be a “trump”? The Supreme Court and lower courts have often interpreted the Constitution to abstain from regulating questions of trial evidence. Taking the opposite course, courts have displaced evidence law to dramatic effect, as […]
The Roberts Court’s decisions interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are reshaping the litigation landscape. Yet neither scholars, nor the Court itself, have articulated a coherent theory of interpretation for the Rules. This Article constructs a theory of Rules interpretation by discerning and critically examining the two starkly different methodologies the Roberts Court applies in its Rules cases. It traces the […]
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 Open
The Cornell Law Review is currently accepting article, essay, or book review submissions. The Cornell Law Review Online is also 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 […]