Category: Old Comments

There is a circuit split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth circuits concerning the level

In March of 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) adopted a policy that bars the use of supplemental environmental projects

In the summer of 2020, Missouri legislators passed a law that drastically reduced consumer protections in Missouri.1 SB-591 amended –

First harvested for export in 1612, tobacco has remained a large, and controversial, part of the United States’ identity. In

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has faced increasing political opposition as the law has become a fixture of

A consumer’s unique genetic code is their most intimate piece of personal data. Many federal laws concerning the privacy and

Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) is an economic development tool used by local municipalities to lure investment to areas that would not normally receive any. The process starts by having a local municipality or developer propose a redevelopment plan for a particular area. This area must fall into a statutory definition to be eligible for TIF and a “but-for” analysis is required, along with a proposal to a TIF commission. They then will move to approve or disapprove the proposal; if approved, the plan can be implemented for a defined duration. During the implementation, the purpose is for the investment plan to create property tax appreciation that will lead to higher tax revenue, thereby justifying the financing method.

For more than a century, antitrust law has operated under two rules of analysis: rule of reason and per se. In 1984, however, the Supreme Court fabricated a new standard for a particular type of antitrust offense, referred to as the “partial per se” rule. This rule confuses and obscures the analysis taking place in tying arrangements and has no place in American jurisprudence. The rule should be abolished, and in its place, the Court should adopt the rule of reason analysis and elements suggested by Justice O’Connor in the very case from which this “partial” rule originated. By doing so, the Supreme Court will better enable lower courts to make proper decisions, prevent over-deterrence of tying arrangements, and clarify the standards that companies must meet to engage in this business practice.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been hailed by many as both a significant and sensible tax reform. It lowered the U.S.’s notoriously high corporate tax rates while also providing a tax break for many individual Americans. Although this tax reform has its benefits, this article discusses a troubling provision that has not garnered much attention. This particular provision, incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code as § 162(q), does not allow the deduction of settlement or attorneys’ fees in sexual harassment cases when a settlement is subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Although the intention of this reform was to protect victims of sexual harassment, the statutory language actually harms victims in a number of ways. Congress has recognized some of these issues, but unfortunately it does not understand the full scope of the problem. This ultimately leaves victims in harm’s way as efforts to correct the legislation have stalled. This article addresses the three significant problems with § 162(q) and proposes potential solutions.

In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a sweeping tax reform bill which altered huge swaths of the Internal Revenue Code. Among the numerous changes was an alteration to § 1031 of the Code, which defers taxable gains for taxpayers exchanging property with other taxpayers for similar property; more specifically, the Act limited this section to real property.