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
In recent years, progressive public intellectuals and prominent scholars have asserted that monopoly power lies at the root of wealth inequality and that increases in antitrust enforcement are necessary to stem its rising tide. This claim is misguided. Exercises of market power have complex, cross- cutting effects that undermine the generality of the monopoly regressivity […]
Disparate Impact and the Role of Classification and Motivation in Equal Protection Law After Inclusive Communities
At least since the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, disparate-impact liability has faced a direct constitutional threat. This Article argues that the Court’s decision last Term in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., which held that disparate-impact liability is available under the Fair Housing Act, has […]
Transactional lawyers working in corporate finance commonly assume that good teamwork results in better deals. While this may be true, teamwork can also magnify agency costs between issuing companies and the lawyers that serve them. This occurs for at least two reasons. First, teamwork, as it is frequently executed, can discourage dissent by team members […]
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 no longer accepting submissions for Volume 102. Cornell Law Review Online will begin taking submissions in November 2016.
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 […]